- Date published:
7:00 am, March 29th, 2019 - 194 comments
Categories: act, Christchurch Attack, david seymour, greens, immigration, marama davidson, racism, racism - Tags: Golriz Ghahraman
I have a really soft spot for the Green Party. If it was not for tribal hard wiring of my genetic makeup I could quite possibly be a member of the Green Party.
Their analysis of the environmental catastrophe that we are facing and their determination to do something about it resonate.
Which is why I struggle with the treatment of the Green Party by the Daily Blog.
Theoretically TDB should be to the left of the Standard. We are relatively middle of the road with a left tinge.
But TDB tends to be negative in its commentary about the Green Party. Maybe Martyn Bradbury is spending too much time with Sean Plunkett and Damien Grant.
Maybe Chris Trotter is blogging too much on Whaleoil.
Whatever it is I don’t get it.
Trotter’s latest effort is to get stuck into Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman about what I am not sure.
He starts off with a historical lesson about the Alliance.
He complains about what he says was Jim Anderton’s craven surrender to the right post 9/11.
My honest impression is that Anderton was never really a left winger and the breakup was caused by personality difficulties of which Afghanistan was merely the last straw. Anderton was opposed to Rogernomics, good on him, but he started off being an alternative leader to and to the right of David Lange. When Lange was dragged to the right by his so called friends Anderton tacked left.
Trotter then says this:
Why is any of this relevant to the Greens? Because, in the aftermath of another terrorist attack, this time against the Muslim community of Christchurch, New Zealand, another radical faction, in another small but highly successful progressive party, again appears determined to compromise another Labour Prime Minister’s domestic and international responses to an appalling terrorist outrage.
Davidson and Ghahraman need to ask themselves what the reaction of their parliamentary colleagues is likely to be if it becomes clear that their determination to leverage-off the Christchurch Mosque Shootings to unleash an uncompromising anti-racist campaign encompassing the whole of Pakeha New Zealand, is met with a strong enough push-back to jeopardise the Greens chances of remaining in Parliament after 2020? Will the other members of the Green Caucus meekly accept that two of their number must be permitted follow the dictates of the consciences, regardless of the damage they are inflicting on their party? Or, will they attempt to stop them?
So are Marama and Golriz really attempting to leverage off the Christchurch Mosque Shootings to unleash an uncompromising anti-racist campaign encompassing the whole of Pakeha New Zealand?
Well Marama said this:
I found out this morning, that a Pākeha man asked a kura kaupapa group of kids to stop singing the anthem in te reo on Friday, while they were sharing their aroha and grief at a mosque. This kura had been visiting the mosque every day, with love and waiata.
We can be a land that does not foster this type of ignorance and racism. Tamariki should feel absolute pride in sharing their reo, especially when using it to build bridges with other communities. I know that the Muslim community have been nothing but grateful for all the tikanga that Māori have used to show aroha directly to them.
We need everyone – Pakeha, tangata whenua, Pacific, Asian and all communities of colour, people across all faith groups – to create a nation free of this fear of different languages and customs and world views. We have to share and connect and build relationships with each other. And with the love rippling around the country right now, I have been encouraged by those who have started to reflect, and are feeling an urge to help dismantle those oppressions. I hope we can take that love, and can learn to listen.
This racism, this bigotry, has always been us.
But it doesn’t have to be.
Speaking as a pakeha male I was not insulted or upset by what Marama said.
Ghahraman said this:
White supremacy was not seen as a pressing threat, even as some in the Muslim community were.
Although this man happened to have not been born in New Zealand, we do need to acknowledge the truth that his ideology does exist in pockets here. Our ethnic communities, refugees, and tangata whenua have been telling us this for years. They’ve been reporting this for years.
I know it as my daily truth as a politician. I receive all the barrage of hate online. I receive the threats – the death threats, the rape threats, and the threats of gun violence, online.”
Every minority in New Zealand knows this as a little bit of our truth. So now we have to pause and listen.”
So she was talking about white supremacy, pockets of opposition, not white people per se.
Identifying one insensitive person or a clique should not be treated as attacking a whole race.
Just ask David Seymour.
He came up with these stirring words:
We are bound together by a common humanity. All our lives have inherent value and we each have inalienable rights and freedoms. That’s why an attack on those rights and freedoms is an attack on all of us. But the most dangerous long-term threat is being dehumanised and made mere members of a group in the name of identity politics.
Wonderful words. All I can say in response is why did his party dog whistle so strongly on the UN convention of Migrant rights and against immigrants?
And if you need proof:
The Daily Blog and Trotter would be better placed identifying those who are opposed to our multicultural heterogeneous society. And they are not the Greens.
When the shoe fits and you look an in the mirror and you don’t like the appearance there are a number of things you can do.
1) Stop looking in the mirror.
2) Blame the mirror.
3) Try a different shoe.
All very wise, incognito. But in this case the shoe doesn’t fit.
How can you tell? You can only speak for yourself, can’t you? Trotter may say that the shoe doesn’t fit him but that’s as far as he can realistically go. The worst thing to do would be to take him at his word and ‘confirm’ that the shoe doesn’t fit on your (as in the general “your”) foot either and absolve you from any introspection for ingrown biases and prejudices.
Now you have really lost me completely.
I thought I understood what you were implying above – now I have no idea. Far too nuanced for my little brain.
All I can say is that I completely agree with what Mickey has written, and am in full agreement with both Marama and Gloriz.
I wonder sometimes about Chris T. Just where he is coming from, and his obvious dislike of the Green Party. Perhaps we are too left of centre for him, and as a consequence too focused on humanitarian, and social issues; when all we should be doing, is being the yapping dogs for “green” stuff?
+ 1 yep I agree.
Maybe it is just Labour tribalism on Trotters part.
Micky, comes across as tribal Labour also, but he has the grace to acknowledge the principled stance, of the Green MP’s.
Maybe it is just sour grapes, as the “Chardonnay socialists” have their lack of real progressive achievements exposed, by these two intelligent and effective, young ladies.
My apologies. I’m also in agreement with the OP.
Let’s forget about the shoe – my bad to use the metaphor and misinterpreting your comment.
What Davidson and Ghahraman are doing is holding up a mirror [oops, another metaphor]. However, some people (Pākeha) might be reading Trotter and reject the suggestion that we all have (those) ingrown prejudices exactly because he refuses to look into the mirror. For these people it is easier to follow Trotter’s example or his words rather, than to do the hard introspective examination [not a euphemism]. Echo chamber stuff without critical independent thinking but lazy following and parroting of other’s thoughts and ideas.
This is one difference between a public intellectual and a commentator, for example: the first will invite or challenge you to do your own thinking and form your own opinion whilst the second will only give you their opinion and invite you to accept this as your own or outright reject it. There is little option for a middle ground or synthesis of opposing views or ideas. It’s the usual binary stuff that fits so well with tribal and partisan discourse and politics but that won’t get us anywhere.
I hope this is clearer 🙂
Perhaps it is the constant conflation of “racism” with other forms of discrimination. Islam is a religion, not a race. There are Muslims of every single race on the planet. My understanding of the shooter’s motivations suggests that the issues in his mind were more associated with religion and culture than they were with race. This is a very important distinction. It undermines the assertion that white supremacy was a primary motivating factor and forces one to ask why religious/cultural differences would be a motivating factor. A much more complex question that requires a more nuanced response.
I’m not so sure.
I haven’t read any of what the perpetrator said as such, but I have read this:
This is a discussion as to what it might be about and what was the purpose of the document he released. In it J.M. Berger, the author of a book called “Extremism” and a research fellow at the VOX-Pol Network of Excellence, a research organization that studies extremism online says this:
Incorrect fustercluck. It is well known that Islam is a political ideology in the guise of a religion. It is imperative that people understand that. The duality of Islam has fooled people for centuries but education and understanding of Islam is imperative if we want to live in peaceful diversity because much of the west have been fooled into not understanding Islam’s world ambitions.
Which is why Europe is in a dark place it is at present. Aided by the UN which is now comprised of 30% Islamic Nations Islam is making its presence felt all over the world and not in a good way. I would hate to see this safe haven overwhelmed by this ideology that is virtually the opposite of everything we hold dear.
I’m getting lost (literally).
How about you put the shoe on the other foot?
I’m sure you know what would happen then.
I know what its like having two left feet…
Trotter knows the shoe fits (more or less).
He’s just concerned that if you point it out, it will enrage so many people that you won’t get the chance to change what he considers to be more important parts of the wardrobe. A lot of his stuff, although beautifully written, comes down to nothing more than political tactics.
A lot of his stuff, although beautifully written, comes down to nothing more than political tactics.
Yes, beautiful and impressive but when you analyse it… it’s often hard to know what the hell he’s on about. 🙁
Very good MS. You are so right (I mean left – whatever!).
I am not so hard wired and have been a Green supporter since the beginning and I am very proud of our MPs right now.
Is it not a case of Martyn holding the party he supports (apparently) to account?
Good on him, I say.
Maybe if the supporters of Labour were more open to honest critiquing of our Party /Policies /Delivery…and actual aims*, we might actually turn this ship round.
And I don’t mean me and the other party poopers from the Left, I mean actual true beige centrists…who seem perfectly happy to celebrate advertising slogans and pr coups without looking at the actual reality of their fellow citizens
or The Planet (ffs)
for whom ‘Let’s Just Do this’ is not really making any real difference…after all, Labour is still seen, rightly or wrongly, as the Party for the struggling worker, family, community, , and by extension..Mother Earth …maybe if being centrist no longer holds to those values Labour should rebrand itself entirely, and just be upfront about its aims.
*Top issues that come to mind would be Carbon Trading nonsense, emission targets, Free Trade Policies, and (of course)the ‘Housing Market’..the number of people I meet who voted for Labour thinking they wouldn’t sign the TTP/CPTPP or thought their working class kids would be able to buy a Kiwi Build,
who now find that they were helping bring in more middle class kids onto the ladder, presumably to ensure future buyers for when the baby boomers downsize..
(lets hope the struggling masses are still shit scared enough of National to turn up to the next election–maybe that could be the starting point for next elections campaign slogan)
He supports the Green Party by saying it purge the party of all the “woke people” (concerned about things that do not bother an old white “cis gendered” :male) or fall below 5% support.
All racism is racism and leads to violence, The greens need to hang their heads in shame and shut up untill they have renounced polarisation as a campaign tool.
Explain what you think is racism in what they are saying.
Do you not agree that polarisation has been a primary campaign tool of the greens since MMP?
Do you not see the connection?
The greens must remain silent now and look inwards!
Asking for the opposite of polarisation, is polarisation?
The good old days of silence when there was FPP and “assimilation” of newer waves of white migrants and there as no Maori in public places except marae.
And it was of guilt and shame not to conform.
Huh? Try a little harder to explain how you reached this conclusion.
It seems to me, they are doing the opposite.
As someone said above. If the shoe fits?
Asking people to examine their own prejudice, and they didn’t just talk about white people, can be one of the good things that come of this.
Well said; that’s what I tried to convey but I couldn’t do up the shoe lazes and tripped over.
It’s impossible to stand up for those who pay tax on their work income without offending those who earn their money via CG.
Its impossible to stand up for the victims of racism and injustice without offending those who could not care less.
both those things are both possible and necessary
Then please share, the how?
” remain silent now and look inwards “
This is what is being talked about…not your diluted version MS…and has provoked much discussion in our family.
She speaks the truth and we will not move ahead as a nation until we acknowledge this truth and work towards a healing that is far from complete. Much of the failure to heal is the result of denial and self righteousness
+ 1 yes
Thanks Rosemary I can’t wait to watch these, though I’ll save them up for later I think.
All true. What is your problem.
I identify as an old white Pakeha. I wasn’t bought up in Maori culture, though I find it a comfortable fit.
I have no problem with Marama and Golriz.
In fact, I am very proud of them.
“What is your problem.”
? I don’t understand. I merely posted the link to Marama’s speech becasue that is what MS’s post is about….Bradbury’s reaction to that speech and Golriz’s.
I didn’t say whether I agreed with her speech or not…just that it provoked much discussion in my family.
Apologies. Looking at the links, rather than what you said.
All good. 🙂
Pakeha male here and I’m not offended either. If others don’t want to reflect on their inbuilt ingrained racism then no one is forcing you. I for one don’t consider myself racist yet now I shut any casual racism down, it’s the least I can do.
If on the other hand I described Christianity as a ‘race’, any criticism of it as ‘racism’, anyone who expressed a problem with the history of the Churches a ‘bigot’, or atheists as ‘supremacists’ …. I think you would all rightly fall about laughing.
has been and seems like always will be one of the main failings of the ‘left’
if the ‘left’ could just find a way to deal with things without going down these routes they would go much much further with their positives….
We will progress p.t.o., only when we accept our past and who we are.
It is perhaps you who needs to find a way of ‘dealing’ with things.
yeah, thanks for your opinion, I’ll just pop it in my back pocket for when I might need it one day
anything to say on the actual point?
We’ve been dealing with ‘our past’ since David Lange was PM. It’s worth asking how much longer it will take.
That’s a worthy question, RedLogix. How much longer will it take for those afraid of mirrors to to take a good hard look? Change requires the appropriate amount of pain. Too little and there’s no impetus; ignorance and arrogance continue, too much and it paralyses.
A nice allusion; yet this hall of mirrors has the whole of human history endlessly bouncing around in it. Yes it’s worth a serious visit, and to return informed and sobered.
But some people don’t want to return.
That’s the human burden; to acknowledge our screw-ups and try to not repeat them. No need for sack cloth and ashes, just a little humility and a desire to want to do better.
I don’t understand why people take these things so personally. We don’t choose our culture, we’re born into it, raised according to it, conditioned to accept it and rewarded for compliance. There’s no shame in admitting we were taught wrong. It only becomes shameful when its ugly truth is exposed and we choose to continue on the same path.
Thank goodness we have younger generations who point to the shit stains whilst we blindly swear we wiped our arses.
Change is a natural process. You probably know the meaning of the word apoptosis: the death of cells, which occurs as a normal and controlled part of an organism’s growth or development. It plays an important role in the development of the embryo, for example.
For socio-psychological change or development, it is important that we shed some ideas to make room for new ones. The pain comes from our resistance to let go of old ideas; human suffering is not caused by change but by resistance to it.
We will have “dealt with our past” when Maori do not lead in the statistics of poverty and deprivation.
There is a long way to go, yet.
We don’t even have to address it on the basis of ethnicity.
Just make sure we have genuinely unbiased, equality of opportunity.
Probably wouldn’t think it was very funny, but how does whatever point you are making relate to Micky’s article?
If you had instead said white people is a ‘race’, criticism of white people is ‘racism’, anyone who expresses a problem with the history of white colonisation as a ‘bigot’ or called, for example, the Tino Rangatiratanga movement ‘supremacists’ or the Waitangi Tribunal as a ‘land grab’ … you would be equivocating, deliberately missing the point and it would also be an ahistorical denying of reality.
Just as well I didn’t say that then …
You don’t like it? I thought we were merely doing cryptically pointed/pointless hypotheticals.
OK so lets circle back to the point; is Islam a race? Does this mean anyone who does not accept it’s legitimacy is a ‘racist’? Does expressing concerns about Islam’s history and social practices equal ‘bigoted Islamophobia’? Does pointing out the fundamental incompatibilities between Western society and Islam mean ‘white supremacy’?
Because these definitions are neither cryptic nor hypothetical.
No, indeed this is less cryptic.
I’ll give it a go – although I did ask you to explain how whatever you are trying to say relates to Micky’s article – asking questions is not always an effective way of responding.
2) No, but maybe a little arrogant?
3) Could be, particularly if they don’t know much about Islam and they are being all faux knowledgable about it.
4) Not necessarily so – they would need to think that white people were supreme to be a white supremacist.
So maybe then we could stop misusing these words.
White supremacist is good and I tack on race and religion haters too. That seems to catch everyone.
They are pretty descriptive of certain human foibles and aspirations in the right context – off the top of my head –
They draw attention to self-deception
The ask for self-reflection
They seek awareness
They try to disarm hate
They hope for a better, more caring and equitable society
They yearn for compassion and love
First off, this is tautology, Islamophobia is a bigotry; but more importantly, it depends on what the concerns expressed are. Are you legitimately concerned that Sharia Law would be enacted in the ‘west’ and that you would be subject to it? Does Islam scare you?
Isn’t one of the principles of ‘Western society’ secularity? This question of yours is interesting in that it implies that all of the worlds 1.8 billion Muslims, including those that live in ‘Western’ countries, are excluded from ‘Western society’ by dint of your assessment of the incompatabilities of their beliefs.
First off, this is tautology, Islamophobia is a bigotry
Oh I see what you did there. LOL
Are you legitimately concerned that Sharia Law would be enacted in the ‘west’ and that you would be subject to it? Does Islam scare you?
Millions of liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims have come to the West to escape sharia law and Islamic rule. Most of them want to live in relative freedom from it. Still there is a real minority of hard-liners who do want to import their legal customs and impose them on all Muslims resident in the West.
While there is little prospect of medieval horrors like stoning homosexuals, adulterers, or ‘apostates’ to death being implemented in the West (and is legal only in about 10 Islamic countries at present) there are many other aspects which are problematic. Where sharia poses genuine dilemmas for secular countries with big Muslim minorities is not in the realm of retribution but in its application to family matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody.
Practices around polygamy, first cousin marriage, age of consent and divorce are very different. When legal principles clash with a quite different social norms, the results are inevitably messy. Islamic rules on religiously mixed marriages have harsh consequences for mixed couples. Islam prohibits Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men (the reverse, however, does not apply).
My view is simple, you move to another country you obey it’s laws. Period.
Isn’t one of the principles of ‘Western society’ secularity?
Separation of State and Church is a largely western idea that permits us to tolerate a wide range of community spiritual practice, without it necessarily spilling into the political arena. Exceptions such as Northern Ireland are vivid demonstrations of why this is a generally good idea.
Islam by contrast struggles with the idea of secularisation; and the briefest of glimpses across the Middle East reveals deep and dangerous sectarian divisions, fueling much of the violence.
The West certainly has it’s own problems, I see no merit in adding this one to the list.
Right, and you think that the presence of a ‘real minority of hard-liners’ are breaking ‘western’ laws and that therefore means that ‘islam is incompatable with Western society’.?
It may interest you to know the first cousin marriages are not illegal in New Zealand. What say you of the incompatibility of hard-line Xtian sects such as the Cooperites?
Understood. However your response to the problems of white supremacy and the history of colonisation is to make broadbrush complaints about all Muslims?
It may interest you to know the first cousin marriages are not illegal in New Zealand.
But widely frowned upon and not common. The rules around consanguinity are defined differently in every culture and religion, but the west has settled on a system that is well understood to have a sound genetic basis.
One of the big ones remains usury, which Islam still forbids, just as Christians and Jews used to.
I think that was one of my first comments here back in 2007. Of all the relatively few things the major religions say about how a society might organise itself economically … the one thing they all have in common is either a ban, or tight limits on the lending of money.
Very cool you’ve noticed that 🙂
Yeah – I taught a couple Muslims in Christchurch 20 odd years ago, we talked about pretty much everything. Lovely guys, an Algerian and an Afghan. One of the reasons I didn’t get too culture shocked teaching in Saudi – though I missed the Korean samgyupsal big time.
Thanks for the links, RedLogix, makes for interesting reading. I haven’t dug deep into Islam, mostly because I don’t want to and yet I think I need to.
“How confusing is it to be told that all the worlds problem are caused by oppressive patriarchal, bigoted, white supremacist males (in societies where in fact women have more equality and opportunity than ever before in human history), while at the same time Islam is the gentle religion of peace, love, harmony and equality that we must embrace without limits.”
I’m a bit tired and I’m probably reading you comment all wrong because it sounds like you said women should be grateful because we have it better than our predecessors. I really value direct communication and am open to be challenged on anything I say. But I can also be blunt AF and sometimes that means people take me wrong. I’d like to think I’ve been clear in my comments that I don’t think men are the source of all evil nor do I think the patriarchal systems of our society are the cause of all wrong.
I am no supporter of religion. I like the old Greek gods myself. They were much more fun.
But, my friends are Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Farsi and probably a few others. Some even believe in capitalism!
All decent people who just want to bring up their families in peace, and support the same for everyone else. They are fitting into New Zealand culture, just fine.
The capitalists seem to have the most problems with Kiwi ideals of fairness, equal opportunity and honesty.
Like Christians, most Muslims abandoned the more intolerant and anti social teachings, long ago.
Note that both the legendary founders, of Christianity and Islam, were re markedly progressive advocates of human rights, compared with their contemporaries.
The most repressive and murderous Governments in our area, are secular.
Fanatics exist in all cultures. Are we not talking about Neo Nazi’s here.
Your constant apologia for Western capitalism is getting tiresome.
Are you totally oblivious to the fact, that most of the shambles in the middle East, was caused by the West. Little to do with Islam.
Iran, for example, is a theocracy as a reaction to the repressive Dictatorship of the Shah. A Dictator installed in typical Western fashion when the Democratic Government, in the 50’s, tried to look after Iranians, instead of US oil companies.
The same is happening in Christian South America. Initially to make bananas cheap for US , growers.
As for Northern Ireland religion, is a marker for the English invaders, that sets them apart from the earlier Irish invaders.
If they were not different religions they would have simply used another distinguishing characteristic.
“Isn’t one of the principles of ‘Western society’ secularity? This question of yours is interesting in that it implies that all of the worlds 1.8 billion Muslims, including those that live in ‘Western’ countries, are excluded from ‘Western society’ by dint of your assessment of the incompatabilities of their beliefs.”
I could be wrong but it sounds like you’re bending rhetoric to expose cracks when you use phrases like “excluded from Western society”. Muslims themselves believe Islam is incompatible with Western societies’ culture. That incompatibility doesn’t mean it needs to be exclusionary, just that co-existence requires greater tolerance and (possible) more complicated solutions.
I’m sure that’s news to some Muslims.
That’s probably not best served by making sweeping statements about the religious beliefs of 1.8 billion people.
I never make comments in absolute terms. (see what I did there 🙂 )
I shouldn’t have to spell out that it isn’t ALL Muslims.
Islam is such a diverse religion with Sunni and Shia have different opinions on whether hadith should be considered a divine revelation, which in turn causes disputes over interpretation and implementation of shariah and fiqh laws. Given that Muslims don’t read the Qur’an like christians read the bible they are then dependent on the scholars decisions through hadiths, tafsirs and sira. Anyone with a minute understanding of Islam would know any statement about Muslims and their faith isn’t going to be in absolute terms.
And I stand by my statement that the religious rituals and rules of Islam conflict with Western society which is why we see the disparity in work force numbers for Muslims. Only the most liberal of Muslims are going to be ok with a woman working alone with men or not complying with the set times of calls to prayer.
As I said above, these conflicts don’t have to make integration impossible. We’ve seen first hand that Muslims shape their lives around their religious obligations to make it work and that’s to their credit.
Then there is this:
How confusing is it to be told that all the worlds problem are caused by oppressive patriarchal, bigoted, white supremacist males (in societies where in fact women have more equality and opportunity than ever before in human history), while at the same time Islam is the gentle religion of peace, love, harmony and equality that we must embrace without limits.
Who is saying that. Straw man again.
Your comment above at 3:19.
“Does pointing out the fundamental incompatibilities between Western society and Islam mean ‘white supremacy’?”
While various Islamic countries like Iran have in recent times enacted secular laws around the age of consent compatible with modern practice, sharia law itself specifies no minimum age.
And indeed this is the case in Saudi and at least 5 other countries that adhere to strict, traditional versions of Islamic law. Child marriage is common in Saudi, Yemen, Nigeria, Afghanistan … and even in other countries like Turkey, where conservative Islamic communities often just ignore the law.
How compatible with your view of the world is child rape marty?
Graham Capill, Cardinal Pell and many others thought it was compatible (until they were convicted by ‘Western’ laws), so does this mean Christianity is ‘incompatible with Western society?’
As I said below to McF; the mistake they all made was believing they were not subject to secular law.
And it is your contention that all Muslims also believe they are not subject to secular law. That is also a mistake.
As I said above, millions of moderate Muslims and ex-Muslims came to the West to escape Sharia law. They’re quietly appalled at the prospect of it being re-imposed on them, but cannot speak for the very real fear of being labeled ‘takifir’. As rule these people are perfectly happy to obey the secular law of the land.
But what most Westerners miss, because we’ve largely discarded it, is that in Islam religious law is fundamentally inseparable from the faith itself. As I’ve said elsewhere, Islam, in a very broad sense, is more comparable with Judaism, rather than Christianity which arose essentially as a reform movement within the context of Christ being a Jew.
Indeed Christ himself said: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
You haven’t seen that Islam also requires believers to obey the law of the land?
So Christ said that he came to accomplish the purpose of the laws of Moses and the writings of the prophets. ‘Accomplishing the purpose’ of them is to do what? It doesn’t sound much like reform to me.
These Mosaic laws (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) include all the kosher laws such as not eating shrimp or shellfish, not wearing mixed fabrics and stoning your rebellious child to death.
It’s interesting to note that there are a wide variety of interpretations of the application of these laws to Christians. Now for some levity I will quote my favourite Christian, Ned Flanders, during a crisis of faith;
When we read the Mosaic Laws we can read both an eternal and a temporal purpose being expressed in them.
We can read for instance the Ten Commandments and are struck by their enduring wisdom; yet the details of kosher food strike us moderns as an ephemeral distraction. We can see how some of the laws and punishments may have made sense in a different era, but our minds cannot embrace them in ours.
There is a good line I read somewhere recently’ “The past is a another country, they do things differently there”.
What Jews and Muslims do have in common is a much stronger historic connection with their respective legal systems; a connection that the fundamentalists among then passionately wish to resurrect. While ultra-Orthodox Jews are a small minority, sadly within the major power centres of Islam, fundamentalist sects such as the Wahhabi’s wield considerable influence.
By contrast modern Christianity has a much more diffuse sense of ecclesiastical law, having for the some part translated into, and then replaced it with secular Western law. This is not to argue that the Western canon is the best or final possible system, quite the contrary there are many obvious flaws and we constantly agitate toward reform … but the idea that it’s somehow compatible with a legal system intended to be useful in a medieval society 1400 years ago really hasn’t been well though through.
And certainly not one that your average Westerner has been asked about either.
The enduring wisdom of Thou shalt have no other gods before me?
Of Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image?
Of Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?
Of Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy?
Those are just the first four!
Of the ten commandments only three of them have an equivalent in ‘western’ law. So sure, they’re fine for those who believe but not ‘Western’ society as a whole.
It is my contention that condemnation of Islam as ‘incompatible’ with ‘Western society’ is more than a little self-fulfilling. It disallows the potential of a similar transformation like that of Christianity. It excludes any of the 1.8 billion Muslim voices from participating in a secular ‘Western’ society.
The nub of the matter seems to be that you’re holding two different standards on the followers of Islam vs the followers of Christianity. Part of the problem with the world is that yes, there are fundamentalists in Christian society just as there are fundamentalists of every religion.
Even if half the shit about Mike Pence is true, that’s a religious nutter they made VP of the USA. That means the fundamentalist bloc is a significant voting bloc in some parts of “Western” society. We have our own groups here – Brethren come to mind. And the gullible fools who follow Tamaki.
And on the flipside, most Muslims are pretty mellow people, just like most Christians. The books are pretty equivalent to each other when it comes to getting medieval on each other, but most followers are pretty equivalent when it comes to just trying to get along in the world.
Some parts of the world are more restrictive than others, but the same can be said for Christianity. And the religious rules are always interpreted in accordance with the local cultural rules. Sometimes a religion is used to maintain the local power structures (Russian Orthodox resurgence comes to mind), or is a refuge and recruiting tool for opponents of occupation, repression and colonisation (the overthrow of the Shah). The few who might want to see “Sharia law” imposed in NZ are the same few of a different creed who marched for “enough is enough” and want homosexuality made illegal again.
And most NZers are happy to just say “fuck off” to both.
I think that is my point, the West has firmly said ‘fuck off’ to the regressive fundamentalist strand of Christianity (and Judaism for that matter); but seems quite unwilling to do so when the same craziness comes with the label ‘Islam’.
And it’s an especially troubling silence when we have evidence like the truly vile crimes of ISIS on downward, or the homophobic legislation of Brunei, taking place in real time. You can’t seriously imagine Mike Pence is actually comparable?
Really? Do you think that the SIS are trying to recruit Exclusive Brethren members to become informers in case that lot go next-level loopy?
Perhaps people prefer to try to do something about that which is ‘closer to home’.
Within ‘Western society’ Mike Pence is entirely comparable.
The Hysterical Professor himself says in the 6th tenent:
If you think rape of children has anything to do with religion then you are dimmer than I thought.
And Christianity forbids homosexuality, yet this “incompatibility” doesn’t seem to have led to too much anarchy.
And NZ law says you’re not allowed to stone anyone to death for breaking any of the rules in Leviticus, but that incompatibility hasn’t led to too many problems.
How compatible with your view of the world is killing someone for converting to another religion, RL?
For the simple reason that Christian Churches explicitly give precedence to secular law. They may well have views on the law, and may wish to lobby via the democratic system to represent their interests … but they do not have a separate system that they wish to implement. On top of this there is a clear understanding in most non-fundie Churches that the legal system in the Old Testament belonged to an entirely different age.
Indeed this is precisely where the Catholic Church came adrift with it’s own problems; there is no question that at some level there was a residual idea that the clergy were not entirely answerable to the laws of the land, and that the Church could get away with dealing with child abusers ‘in it’s own way’. Turned out to be a very bad idea.
How compatible with your view of the world is killing someone for converting to another religion, RL?
Interesting question McF. You are indeed getting warm.
Yeah the bible has a lot of shit like that in it.
The bit about Christian churches and legal precedence is interesting. Anglicanism is an arm of the state. Protestantism is “fuck you I’ll do what I want”. Catholicism is “oh, you’re a state? How quaint, but this is Church business”. The Catholic response to rapist clergy was not a residual idea, it was longstanding active practise. Not the only church to do it, but the one that had done it consistently for over a thousand years. Not an appendix, but a liver – in constant use all that time.
So here is the equivalent teaching in Islam:
Still incompatible with ‘Western society’?
Still incompatible with ‘Western society’?
Yep. Any religion that lays out a legislative programme and declares that rejecting the religion is a crime can’t be compatible with ‘Western society’ – not the ones of the last couple of hundred years, at least. Its followers may make excellent friends and fellow citizens, but that doesn’t make the religion itself any better.
Religion is religion is religion.
Most of them get pissy at apostacy and people who refuse to convert. Christianity is no better or worse than any other in that regard.
One might argue that it is the secularisation of ‘Western society’ that mellowed the practice of religion. Surely, it’s this secularism that makes it incompatible with all religions not just Islam in particular? Or a more positive corollary; it’s secularism that makes ‘Western society’ compatible with all faiths (and non-believers), all who can work together.
you might want to have a read of this then
cause this is what is happening in the US atm. One day a time. but its ok, they are not ‘muslim’ ey?
Religion is religion is religion.
And politics is politics is politics. Differences between items in the same categories do count for something.
Surely, it’s this secularism that makes it incompatible with all religions not just Islam in particular?
I’m the wrong person to ask – to me, all religions are shit, it’s just that some of them are shittier than others.
but its ok, they are not ‘muslim’ ey?
I have no opinion on Muslims, so it’s not clear what your point is.
I don’t think there are significant differences between most of the world’s religions. They are all mostly made of people just trying to get along, and they all have fringe minorities wanting to kill non-believers (usually as a reaction to decidedly non-religious socioeconomic and political conditions).
The details that are most important to religious people have no direct worldly impact. The details most important to politically active people are often the ones with the most severe worldly impact.
Doesn’t seem that the Christian, “secular” State of the USA, is much better.
Have a look at the age of consent, in France.
haha – very good.
A semantic argument seems a bit lazy for you Red. It’s always tricky when words refer to different things but we have context for clarity and it’s worked well for other topics like ‘sex’.
I accept it was a truncated and blunt argument, but the exact meaning of powerful words is important. And lazy or not, no-one has directly addressed it.
And as I said on another thread this morning, it’s striking how many on the left have for decades denigrated, sneered at and mocked Christianity (and religion in general) with impunity … but suddenly regard Islam as beyond all reproach. There’s your context.
But, but….Jesus was a Lefty!!!!
“Conservatives claim Christ as one of their own. But he was the unemployed son of two asylum-seekers with all the personal traits of a modern revolutionary. ”
Certainly not new….but well worth reminding ourselves there is an Old Book and a New Book.
That fella Jesus changed everything….
Both religions founders were way out on the left field, at the time.
Overturning bankers tables!
Refraining from stoning adulterers.
The right of women to divorce.
Marrying your brothers widow, so her, and her children didn’t starve. Social welfare.
And that the very early Labour Party meetings in this country were often held in Baptist Church halls …
Helen Clarks introduction meeting,was held in Balmoral Presbyterian church hall.
And at the same time all the great communist revolutions of the 20th century openly set about expunging religion, supplanting it with a new loyalty to their utopian ideologies and demi-god leaders. Or that that post-modernism, the intellectual foundation of the far left cynically reduces the notion of the Divine to that of an ‘imaginary sky fairy’.
Doesn’t most of your commenting on this thread amount to, “my (Christian) sky fairy is better than the (Muslim) sky fairy”?
Which reaches to the heart of my animosity to organized religion, even though a lot of good people i like are religious.
Inherent in every faith is the notion that their faith is “the one true faith” and that somehow makes them better than others.
No faith is any better, or worse, than any other in this regard.
Fortunately, for most people, religion is only part of their lives.
Children bought up in fundamentalist families have been shown to have less empathy than non religious children, for one.
Religion has always been used by the powerful to keep the majority content with their rulers. Promising they will be the wealthy, in heaven, if they behave themselves.
The Soviets made the mistake of trying force, just like the Catholic church.
They would have done better with democracy, but then, Oligarchs of every political stripe, don’t believe in giving us a say over our own future.
Doesn’t most of your commenting on this thread amount to, “my (Christian) sky fairy is better than the (Muslim) sky fairy”?
Most mature believers of all the monotheistic faiths recognise that they all share a common conception of the Divine, and that at core we are all talking about the same thing. Any student of comparative religion will tell you there is a solid continuity throughout the the Abrahamic religions, from Zoroaster onward.
And indeed if you speak with any Islamic clergy they will explicitly agree with this statement. It’s one of the things the Quran is quite unambiguous about. From there it’s not hard to extend this idea to embrace the great historic Eastern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
The nature of God is not the important distinction here; the innate limitations of the human mind makes trying to capture and define God a futile and ultimately hubris inducing task.
(A crude analogy would be to think about a goldfish in a bowl, in the same room as say John von Neumann giving a lecture. This fish may well have the capacity to know something is going on, but completely lacks the capacity to understand the lecture.)
The important distinction lies here:
The core doctrine of the Islamic clergy is that Muhammad is the greatest and final Prophet of God for all time. This is not an understanding largely confined to fundamentalists and zealots as it is in say Judaism and Christianity, it is a tenet of faith hard-coded into it’s DNA.
And this applies at not only at the level of personal faith, but vigorously expresses itself at the legal and political level. It’s what ISIS was doing .. restoring a glorious Caliphate. And most Muslims have no fundamental objection to that objective, which is why criticism of it’s truly appalling methods and crimes has been so relatively muted across the Islamic world.
“muted across the Islamic world”.
You don’t know many Muslims, do you?
Still tying yourself in knots, to claim your religion is better than the other.
I could give you example after example of bad, and good, things done by followers of any religion.
Christian countries that insist young women’s lives are less valuable, than an unborn circle of unviable cells, for example.
Meanwhile good people in all religions, and secularists as well, would rather we stopped arguing about who is better, “othering” again, and simply tried to follow the basic tenent of any religion. Treat others as you like to be treated. Which I fully support.
You don’t know many Muslims, do you?
That is so funny. Really you keep making assumptions about me that are quite wrong. You even get the proposition that I am a Christian wrong.
Of course the Middle Eastern govts directly impacted by ISIS’s territorial ambitions went all out to oppose the existential threat, and credit to them for doing so. And your average moderate Muslim in West Sydney is deeply unimpressed by these atrocities like this:
But the fact is that ISIS has got at least something to do with Islam and the only way to counter it is to repudiate and excoriate the Caliphate concept of Islam. To say that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS is tantamount to taking an ostrich approach. The concept and prophecy of the Caliphate is the key element of ISIS’s ideology. It emanates from the Hadiths of Muhammad. Even the modus operandi of ISIS such as that of Convert, pay tax, or die originates from them.
To outright deny this despite this indisputable caliphate doctrine is a willful ignorance which facilitates radical Islam. This denial gives credence to the untenable and fallacious theory of “legitimate grievances” that diverts attention from ISIS’s barbarism and Islamist expansionism and indirectly paints a sympathetic picture of these savages. It offers only one solution; that the “West is Evil and responsible for terrorism due to its foreign policy”.
There is absolutely no doubt in the notion that majority of Muslims are peaceful and are vehemently opposed to ISIS. But unfortunately, they are often profoundly oblivious to the bellicose and hateful texts in the Quran and hadiths of the prophet Mohammad. These words served a purpose during the turbulent and dangerous medieval era of Islam … but have no more place in the modern world than the Mosaic laws in Leviticus does.
ISIS represents a crisis of legitimacy within Islam that is every bit as dire as the Nazi’s, the Marxists, or the events of 15/3. Pretending otherwise and remaining silent on this is to become directly complicit in the crime.
Or the US invading Iraq, to prove they had a big dick, eh?
I “discovered” the leftiness of the person we call Jesus after exploring the http://www.politicalcompass.org and doing the test. It came as no surprise then to see that Jesus would have been quite comfortable in the libertarian left of the spectrum. Great source of much delight to me, given the huge following he has with right wing conservatives, his polar opposite.
Oh Islam is NOT beyond reproach, not now, not ever. Yes, there’s going to be a massive over-correction for a bit where everyone is super sensitive about being perceived as hostile to Muslims but take comfort in the fact that ‘wee webbles wobble but they don’t fall down’. From the straining to the left will come a more centralised settlement just like correcting anything bent one must yank it in the opposite direction.
I’ve decided to bite my tongue (about Islam) as I’ve never done before simply because I’m aware how raw and reactive people will be and I can be lazy in my language, using Muslim for Islam, as you’ve seen me do. But I think it’s a little bit of an over-reach to assume that the leaning left is the new centre.
“Oh Islam is NOT beyond reproach,…”
Neither is christianity or judaism.
The fundamentalists amoung them all have this thing about covering women’s hair. What is that about? The closer you are to the Big Fella the less able you are to restrain your baser sexual impulses around bareheaded females?
Let’s face it Maggie…most of this organised religion shit is about power and control. And ensuring the penised ones have all of both.
Yup, dead right and probably based somewhere back in the dim darks as a means for males to be sure they have sired the children they are raising. We have DNA testing for that now.
I don’t think it was about kids, more about control. If you go way way back you’ll find diversity in the gender dynamic.
A woman’s beauty has for the longest time been a commodity men have controlled. Babylonians, for example, gathered all girls of marriageable age in the square and sold off the most attractive to the highest bidder. The money raised was offered as a ‘dowry’ to encourage the sale of the less attractive.
The Nasamones males used wives in common and at the marriage ceremony, the bride was passed round among the male guests where gifts were given to her in exchange for sex.
Women of the Auses tribe were also common property; when a child was fully grown, the men held a meeting and judged by its looks to whom it belonged.
And women of the Gindanes wore leather bands round their ankles, one for each man they’d slept with. Women with the most bands were held in high esteem by society because she had been loved by so many.
In all those cases a woman’s worth was decided by men and even now, when pregnancy can be avoided and paternity proven, women are still encouraged to be sexually attractive but expected to be physically chaste, still judged as sluts if they have a lot of sexual partners. Organised religion just made the process easier by allowing men to point to the sky and say “…because God said so” and abdicate all responsibility for what they were doing.
Most control of females by males, be it human or a pride of lions is to ensure the continuation of the male’s genes. We are no less subject to it that any other species on the planet, we just do it our way.
I honestly think if we can dig down to root causes of some of the actions we take, that seem almost to be beyond our control sometimes, we might just find ourselves a way to exist on this planet in a harmonious manner.
The choice of the best looking females all trails back to gene continuation, I believe, making sure yours get the best opportunity.
Makes you feel kind of insignificant and not all that special in this world once you realise we are subject to primal instincts to a greater or lesser extent as everything else.
We aren’t all that special, could end up being one of the shortest living species ever to dominate the planet at the rate we are going, and we most definitely should stop thinking we own the planet.
I knew I liked you for a reason Rosemary.
If I must choose a label then atheist will do although I have a foot in the anti-theist camp too. Where I draw the line is that I believe everyone has the inalienable right to think whatever they like. But IMO ALL religions are man-made and whilst initially used to make sense of things in nature they didn’t understand it fast became the preferred method of control as populations grew larger.
Fundamentalists can kiss my arse. I’ll cover my hair when they line up for a testicle examination before going to church…
Deuteronomy 23.1 “A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord”
Religions, I have always thought, did not encourage birth control, dead opposite in fact, without a procession of adherents they were stuffed, and those that were in control would see their easy way of life disappear before them.
Religion, I reckon is right up there as a contributor to our overpopulation of the world. (And I reckon it is that that is the root cause of all the ructions today and what looks very much to me as the human race readying itself for another slaughter fest, war).
Notice how, in countries that have emancipated women, the birth rate drops way lower than replacement even. Work back from that and you see where populations have high birth rates it should come as no surprise that women have little control of their lives and fertility.
“Notice how, in countries that have emancipated women, the birth rate drops way lower than replacement even. ”
Hah! Take a gander at Brazil. Average of six babies per woman until the late s1960s. Now….birthrate barely replacement.
You will never guess the major cited reason.
Interesting. It has long been noted that wherever women have more social and economic autonomy, the birth rate has dropped.
Something all those right wingers panicking about young brown women, “breeding for a living” should note.
If it is a much of a problem, as they claim, they would be trying to give them better options.
The term, racism, for Islamophobia, comes from the objection to Moslem migration.
It is similar to German objection to the Jews for not being European, by race and “Christian nation religion”. Which has become called anti-Semtism.
The same term could be used for Arab Moslems (another semitic language and religious group) – but other Moslems are not Arabs, so the more general term racism for objection to the presence of Moslem migrants in historically “European race and Christian religious majority” nations.
One could note how hard it is to find any nation, apart from those in Europe or settled by Europeans, that has a Christian majority population.
But then it is also hard to find any nation without a Christian population that allows Christians to migrate into it (or one Christians would want to migrate to).
I’m curious as to who this pakeha man at the mosque was and what authority he thought he held in that situation.
Marama “This land we are standing on is land we were violently removed from to uphold the same agenda that killed the people in the Mosques yesterday.”
no wonder the greens are pilloried so often, they are their own worst enemies
You don’t think there is anything in it pto?
One group (or individual) violently claiming rights and domination over another, based on the so-called superiority of a ‘white’ race – is there no scrap of recognition of similarity here?
Are you in denial of our shared colonial history?
No. Negligible to the point of insignificance. Loaded question.
Not as loaded as your statement – just trying to suggest that you reflect rather than react.
Sorry, which statement was loaded?
this one? – “jesus christ”
Or this one? – “no wonder the greens are pilloried so often, they are their own worst enemies”
Did you not intend them to be linked?
The history of the land doesn’t lie – pity you’re in denial.
Please read carefully marty. There is no denial of what you think there is.
I did – same agenda – white supremacy and hate – I agree with Marama.
Sure, no problem. I don’t.
Need I go on?
Face up to it. This land was “settled” by just the same sort of” white supremacy” cods wallop reasoning that underlaid the chch tragedy – and it still lingers today – that is why we have on here, supposedly rational folks, condoning the otherwise bigotry of the Canadian idiots smart guy.
Disagree. It was surely settled in many lowly ways as described I agree, but I do not agree with the link to the mosque massacres to anything remotely like the extent suggested. Miles off. Just my opinion.
Well if you want a body count it is estimated that 2254 Māori were killed
Added to that – they had their lands confiscated, their women raped, and those captured were forced into enslaved labour (or haven’t you read how Dunedin was built?)
And it persists today. Māori represent 50+% of our prison population, Their lands are even today, still being confiscated to build “Roads of National Significance”. The majority of Māori are represented socio-economically in the bottom half of our society, and they find it very hard to have any voice in our local governments.
This is what is called for want of a better term “institutionalised racism”
Here is an stark example taken from the US – but it applies equally here when we take into account all the above factors I have mentioned*:
* I’m sure marty could list a lot more.
The older paler maler dudes are on the backlash. What about us they preen, we’re the real victims sob sob, dont blame us we done nothing.
It is good that these sad members of our society are being called out by other men. Men standing up against these whingers, men who know themselves or at least are still trying to grow, men who are mature and kind in their thinking. Thank you to those men.
“But the most dangerous long-term threat is being dehumanised and made mere members of a group in the name of identity politics.”
You quoting someone?
Does this relate to something that mm said?
vto is quoting from MS’ post which quotes David Seymour.
(Grrrrrrr..I wish fffolks would a) provide a link to the source of the quote and b) read the post you’re commenting about.)
vto didn’t need to provide a link as vto is quoting from the post.
Here endeth the daily display of my OCD. Maybe.
Cheers. I must have glanced past the David Seymour bit – sorry to wind up your OCD Rosemary. 🙂
I was mostly concerned about why someone would repeat a quote and then not say anything about it – if they had, then I may have been reminded of the context and not put my foot in it.
“Not sure why someone would repeat a quote from the post and then not say anything about it.”
Sometimes, (and I do this myself) once you’ve quoted, further words are superfluous.
Exactly. My Seymour nailed that one and any addition would have only diluted
Not convinced – it may imply –
1) you agree wholeheartedly with it
2) What do you mean?
3) Yeah, maybe
This is all about communication – call me old fashioned – but I would prefer that the commenter makes some effort to assist the reader to understand what they are on about.
That’s right vto. For too long the way that paler older mener people think has been the default ‘normal’ . Now that thinking is not tolerated and some can’t stand their ivory towers being toppled – “but what about what I think” they swoon, “hear me” they entreat – and all some people are saying is no, wait your turn, let others be heard. Shock horror the revolution is here!!!!!!!
So what you’re saying is that all the white people should step aside and let everyone else have a turn. That sounds nice. Do you think our PM should set the example?
Yes still battling away eh lol what a dork.
So you don’t like being egregiously misrepresented either … I would have thought with all that empathy and inclusiveness you keep telling us about, you might have gotten to this understanding a lot sooner.
But good we finally got there.
I said yes. Those who identify as ‘white’ should shut up and do some listening and Jacinda has led so that others can follow and pick up the work – other MP’s from other groups, religions, ethnicities, sexualities, abilities, ages and parties should continue what Jacinda has started and I see that happening from the Greens.
“Those who identify as ‘white’ should shut up and do some listening…”
Could you please define ‘white’?
Someone who is not a person of colour? That is what the term means; it’s arbitrary and has changed over time but throughout the existence of the term it has been used to define hierarchy.
“White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.”
Sums it up as well as any explanation for me and some good depth on that wiki page.
Edit – snap arkie – am enjoying your comments – Kia kaha
Thanks for that…but…ingrate that I am…I was asking for your definition of ‘white’.
If you see a person and they fit your definition of ‘white’ do you automatically assume they are privileged…by virtue of their whiteness?
Skin pigmentation is a proxy for the privileges of being white in many ways imo. This is inherent within the system because of who created the system. It says nothing about bigotry, prejudice or hate. Those are learned skills not related to an inherited gene for pigmentation. Some of the most non racist people I’ve ever known are ‘white’ and through no fault of their own receive privilege because of their skin colour. People of colour lose privileges arbitrarily for the same reason. That’s our society.
Very apparent to me.
All my first cousins are brown skinned. My skin is white.
We see the difference in treatment, all the time.
Even more marked when dealing with people like WINZ. I put on the suit and tie, and a boarding school accent, and they suddenly find all sorts of extra help for the same brown youngsters, they have been treating like shit, when they go there on their own.
The hard truth is that all numerically dominant ethnicity/cultures set up their society to suit themselves; it would be very odd if they didn’t. Indeed you could argue this is the very bedrock of what we think culture is, the opportunity for a people to be they want be, in a place they want live, with a sense of continuity and cohesiveness.
That wiki page is really only written in the narrow Anglosphere geographic context in which it could make sense, but globally it’s a nonsense. Try working in any large non-western country like China and get back to me about the ‘white privilege’ you encounter there.
Sure red whatever.
There are more middle class people in India than there are in the USA. Add in China and there are more middle class people than there are white people altogether.
You need to update some of your assumptions. Or get out more.
If we were Hindi, in India, we would be opposing the cast system, and in China the impost of Mandarin. My Asian relations find they can no longer communicate with younger people in China as the regional dialects are dying out.
Muslim women have their own battles with male supremacy.
But, we are not there. We are here!
That in the USA, where the political term ‘white privilege’ comes from, the ethnic group with the highest median in come are … Asians.
perhaps most surprising is that, by many measures, the most-educated immigrant group in the U.S. isn’t East Asians. It’s Africans.
You need to update your assumptions.
Have a look at how so many Maori do better in Australia, while Aboriginals are still disadvantaged.
so insecure, all the bullshit unraveling, the fakery exposed, the bigotry and prejudice stood up to. Lost man flounders. Go to a support group red you need real help. This country will be unrecognisable to you soon. Yay.
Even more marked when dealing with people like WINZ. I put on the suit and tie, and a boarding school accent, and they suddenly find all sorts of extra help for the same brown youngsters, they have been treating like shit, when they go there on their own.
And when I accompany my sight and hearing impaired brother to WINZ, then suddenly I find all sorts of extra help for the same white skinned person they have been treating like shit.
Are you sure it’s only skin pigmentation that’s the issue?
Have a look at how so many Maori do better in Australia, while Aboriginals are still disadvantaged.
Odd because when I said the exact same thing to marty some time back he utterly blew up on me.
But again, maybe skin pigmentation hasn’t got as much to do with it as you assert.
So. My direct experience, doesn’t count.
I notice you didn’t address the observation, about the very different treatment my brown skinned cousins get, compared to me.
Marty has had different experiences from me. We are not required to think the same.
Certainly we are not arrogant enough to think we represent all Maori, all males or all Pakeha. Like everyone I can only speak from my own experience.
I think he blew up at you because of the perspective, and what you were trying to justify..
Maori in Australia do not get the same stereotyping, as they do in New Zealand. So it is an escape from prejudice.
There may be many reasons why WINZ treats people like shit; irrational racial prejudice may well be one of them. But to suggest it’s the only reason (especially from an organisation that employs many non-white people) isn’t reasonable.
Yeah! there is also bene bashing. Prejudice, and supremacy, takes many forms.
And. You know about the victims of prejudice, internalising the hate directed at them. And being meaner to their own in consequence. A motivation for much homophobia for example.
And when you think about it what this demonstrates is that the stereotyping is not necessarily about irrational prejudices around skin colour. Most modern people have gotten past that. The real problems arise in the context of behaviour; which is a much harder conversation to have.
In many ways I’ve found Australia a lot more accepting of ethnic differences than many places I’ve worked. No matter who you are, if you turn up, work hard, play hard and engage with people with an open hand, you’ll be accepted for who you are. They can be blunt, but at least you always know where you stand with them.
Sure they’ll give you endless shit for at least two generations; it’s when they stop doing it you have to start worrying. 🙂
What do you hope to achieve by being deliberately obtuse?
Is Jacinda “white”?
True it has been I agree it has been the default ‘normal’…
.. and best we don’t continue it. With anyone.
Perhaps this is where some of the world’s best ever, such as Ghandi and Mandela come in with the approaches they took..
as opposed to the approach of some of the world’s worst ever, such as Mugabe.
Are you a Mandela? Or a Mugabe?
This is the fulcrum I think
Allowing other voices, other experiences and other ways of thinking would be enlightening for many paler older mener men. Takes the burden of always being right, always having to have the answers, always having to try and look alpha, away. Whew. The pressure reduces – violence reduces, suicide reduces and love increases, acceptance increases, connection increases. That’s the society I want.
+1. I’m off to catch a fish …
Yeah, you know I think I’ll stick with the UN on that one:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
There are plenty of injustices around, neither yours nor mine has the right to claim primacy.
The Green Party are the Kurds of New Zealand politics – everyone attacks them and their only friend is the mountains
I think someone has been playing around with your keyboard.
Nope – the Greens are constantly attacked from all sides. It’s like everyone has a gripe with them for one reason or another – too left, not left enough, too idealistic, not idealistic enough, too compromising, not making enough compromises. And like the Kurds, Green Party members have a strong affinity with the mountains
The Greens are like Icelanders when everybody ‘kindly’ suggests that they stick to hugging trees when there are no trees in Iceland.
Having supported the multicultural ethos for 55 years, I share your stance on this. Concern about the Greens being all over the park is a thing, however, and I get why Trotter feels the need to make his point.
I try to avoid commenting on wokery, but agree that your citations from the two women seem worthy of support – they express valid concerns, widely-held. Passionate political advocacy based on principled political positions is what we expect. I support their right to deliver it and see no obvious problem with their framing. They are acting in accord with their conscience, and it seems to fit the political context appropriately.
Trotter is making a technical political point, signalling the likely effect on the future of the government. He’s guessing. His rationale is sound, the analogy seems suitable, but I suspect times have changed enough that things won’t actually work out the way he fears they will.
As regards the bomber’s editorial policy, it goes whichever way the wind is blowing. A few months back I was impressed by how firmly he was supporting the Greens. Grumpy old man syndrome takes quite a while to embed, so it makes sense for him to get an early start. 😎
Like many aging white middle class privilege males both CT and MB are no longer credible voices on the left. Trotter even opposes a CGT.
I’ve stopped posting on the Daily Blog because Bradbury refuses to post any criticism of his attacks on the woke Greens – he uses the term woke the way those on HUAC, like Nixon, used the term UnAmerican as a pejoritive to marginalise. It’s become habitual to him now, much like hate speech is to a racist.
It’s the language of power and privilege, attacking those who stand up for others. Little wonder right wing radio finds him so convenient.
Scathing on Bradbury, but true.
He’s fallen into the trap of having to be controversial in order to be relevant. Only he’s neither in the eyes of his new right wing audience.
And Trotter having aligned with the free speech coalition stands with the right wing against Davidson’s and Ghahraman’s criticisms of the power structures of the West.
The white right wing are being a bit shifty here – they’re framing themselves as another innocent party who are just as prey to racism and hate speech in this country as anyone else. This of course is ridiculous.
Having had the blow torch put upon them for their casual, embedded and previously accepted racism, they seek to wriggle out quietly hoping no one will notice.
Don’t let them because they’ll just go back to their old ways.
All I can say in response is why did his party dog whistle so strongly on the UN convention of Migrant rights and against immigrants?
And if you need proof: (img)
Try as I might I can’t connect these things.
I rarely read anything Trotter writes i starting going off him when he was praising Key all the time.He might have been a lefty once but not anymore