Hard News: What to Do?
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 Newer→ Last
-
Key & Goff are expressing contempt for Participatory Democracy to their superior position as Representatrives in a Representative Democracy.
-
But without someone running a proper campaign that has a significant number spoil their ballots - at least 6 figures. A few thousand more or less writing "this is stupid" on their ballots isn't going to raise an eyebrow, let alone affect the world.
What about voting 'Yes' in the referendum, but stapling a little note on the back expressing said cynicism? Would it still count as a genuine vote?
-
But without someone running a proper campaign that has a significant number spoil their ballots - at least 6 figures. A few thousand more or less writing "this is stupid" on their ballots isn't going to raise an eyebrow, let alone affect the world.
You could be right. On the other hand, the more costly CIRs we have with low turn outs and a relatively high proportion of invalid votes (that high proportion indicating it was a deliberate protest action) just might help prompt parliament to change the CIR system or dump it.
I made a commitment to not vote in CIRs, or to cast a spoiled vote if I did, unless it was an issue I felt could go either way and was really, really important, and the result was clearly going to make a policy difference. Those criteria don't seem to have been met in this case.
I'm slightly appalled that no-one has mentioned the moral obligation to vote.
There isn't one.
However, I do agree with the gist of some of what you say - such as it being better in this case to deliberately cast an invalid vote than not to vote at all.
-
We should demand a "this is a stupid question" option.
-
You could be right. On the other hand, the more costly CIRs we have with low turn outs and a relatively high proportion of invalid votes (that high proportion indicating it was a deliberate protest action) just might help prompt parliament to change the CIR system or dump it.
See John Key's comments on Sue Bradford's bill, and his indication that if it didn't get pulled out of the ballot they might make it a government bill.
-
(By which I mean, appears likely to already happen, the way that people do or don't vote won't make parliament more aware that yes, this is a stupid referendum question, as was the one in 1999, they already know).
-
But I don't know well enough what it means, and I'm not keen that any ethnic group should be forced to be indentified by someone else's label.
A good response to this is this post by Tze Ming on PA ages ago.Yeah, that was a good blog, James. I agree with Tse Ming Mok on that one.
Logan said a page or so back:
I feel no tie to Europe. I identify myself as a person of New Zealand - as a place, not as a nation. I am a product of the culture …
But, the culture you are a product of is massively influenced by European culture. As Tse Ming said in that post:
I've also had to point out, however, that Pakeha were made out of Europeans.
I mean, hello, this is English we're using here. Was the English language invented in New Zealand? Was rugby? Were lamb roasts, cattle and sheep farming, eating copious amounts of dairy products, and gathering with your family at Christmas around a pinus radiata? Where do meringues come from, and why did anyone care about Anna Pavlova to start with? Who forged this postcolonial nation by fighting fascists in Europe? Um... not my family. If this is 'New Zealand' ethnicity, it is a placeholder for 'New Zealand European/Pakeha ethnicity' - and I'll never be one of them (especially the dairy products and meringue bit).
-
I do have an uneasy feeling that there are heaps of people out there who don't see the inconsistency and contradictions in the referendum question that us educated folk can plainly see. How come Baldick constructed the question this way, without seeing any problems with it? Is it less of a question and more of a confirmation of a mind-set?
So, we do really need to decide on the best strategy for dealing with it. Do we just vote "Yes' and suppress all our misgivings about doing so. Or do we make a point and spoil the ballot? I know how I would like to spoil mine (it involves bodily fluids)!
I think I will vote 'Yes' and write a comment on the paper (space permitting) about the validity of the exercise. Of course, only the person counting up votes will likely see this but I will be feel better for it (after all, I often write comments on student exam papers, knowing they are unlikely ever to see them!). But would such an action constitute a 'spoiling'?
-
after all, I often write comments on student exam papers, knowing they are unlikely ever to see them!
That's interesting. Here academics aren't supposed to write on exam papers, only cross each page out with a pencil to prove that they've read it.
Of course, students here can get their exam papers back, so they would see any comments made.
-
Would crossing out "good parental" on the ballot paper and then voting yes, be regarded as a spoiled ballot?.
Omitting those words does not alter the meaning of the question, other than removing an obscure reference to children."Should a smack as part of correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" Well, Yes.
It may be too late for the Govt. to change the question but its not too late for us.
-
It is my understanding that the one child policy only applies to the Han.
It is my understanding that the one child policy only applies to the poor han who can't afford the $10,000 fine for an extra child. Even so, it is common for some of these poor children (predominantly females in rural areas) to remain unregistered as citizens until they reach the age of marriage and a future husband is found to pay that 'dowry'. If unmarriable, maybe they'll never officially exist at all.
Han, or Han Chinese, is an ethncity. You can be ethnically Han without having Chinese nationality.
wikipedia has some interesting stuff about this and this history of the term han
he definition of the Han identity has varied throughout history. Prior to the 20th century, some Chinese-speaking ethnic groups like the Hakka and the Tanka were not universally accepted as Han Chinese, while some non-Chinese speaking peoples, like the Zhuang, were sometimes considered Han.[14] Today, Hui are considered a separate ethnic group, but aside from their practice of Islam, little distinguishes them from the Han; two Han from different regions might differ more in language, customs, and culture than a neighboring Han and Hui. During the Qing Dynasty, Han Chinese who had entered the Eight Banners military system were considered Manchu, while Chinese nationalists seeking to overthrow the monarchy stressed Han Chinese identity in contrast to the Manchu rulers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese
Not to mention the total lack of common physical traits. Han seems to be simply a convenient blanket term for those who have lost their tribal or ethnic roots and been assimilated into the mass.
and deny the use of the term “Chinese” to people in China with full citizenship.
All too true. In China, People are generally classified as either Chinese (subcategorized iinto one of the 56 recognized indigenous groups) or foreigner. Foreigner blooded children born in China who house 'foreigner' physical traits will be socially stuck with that label until death.
When the world is seen through a filter that classifies Saddam Hussein in the same basic group as George Bush but in a different group from Mao Ze Dong, then the world looks pretty different. Comparatively I'm pretty proud of the way the NZ Government at least tries to do the right thing on some level. but...
Sorry if this offends some people (and there's certainly room for argument), but I don't think the Government has any more of a legitimate interest in compelling me to disclose my ethnicity, than it has in collecting information on the gender of who I go down on or where I worship.
sounds about perfect.
-
One thing that really sticks out for me in my life is having switched from an ethnic majority to an ethnic minority, just how low expectations of you become. Ethnic majorities have far more pressure to conform to stereotypes. Michael Jackson needed that information.
-
crossing out "good parental" on the ballot paper and then voting yes
That is a very useful suggestion, as both a response to and commentary on the question.
-
If someone is ethnically Uyghur, but nationally Chinese, doesn’t classifying Han people as Chinese deny the use of the term ‘Chinese’ to people with full Chinese citizenship? If you think that “Uyghurs would put Uyghur down, not Chinese (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” is the answer to the concern I assert you should have (to be consistent) with Chinese Uyghurs, then why isn’t “Māori would put Māori down, not New Zealand (if that's how they identify), because the Census people aren't asking for nationality, but ethnicity” the answer to your concern in relation to New Zealand(er)?
Am becks-style, if anyone gets that joke, and I shall now proceed to be Wolfsonian.
Because Uyghurs that identify as Uyghur are expressing a certain wish not to be Chinese, whereas Maori who identify as Maori are in no way expressing a wish not to be New Zealanders.
Seriously, this is a clear confusion of the concept of nationality and ethnicity (resulting from European nationalism etc etc) and the a refusal of the fact that two sets can have the same name and cover very much the same people but be defined entirely differently. And, to be honest, anybody who asserts that ethnicity is an entirely internal property is somewhat out of date. (Ethnicity of an Northern Irish Catholic who served in HM forces?)
-
For the detail junkies, you can find summary 2006 Census stats about culture and Identity here and detailed Excel tables from this page.
Table 16 shows languages, which provides another layer. The "Sino-Tibeto-Burman" grouping includes "Yue, Northern Chinese, Sinitic, Min and Other". Yue is noted as including Cantonese, and Northern Chinese is noted as including Mandarin.
-
Ethnicity of an Northern Irish Catholic who served in HM forces?
That would depend on the ethnicity of his or her parents.
I don't believe that ethnicity mandates national or political adherence. If your hypothetical person was of Irish ethnicity, the fact that they didn't adhere to republicanism wouldn't change that.
-
I'm slightly appalled that no-one has mentioned the moral obligation to vote.
I'd try being a little less Knuckles The Malevolent Nun about it. :) While I regret it now, at the time I didn't feel able to cast a properly informed vote in the last local body elections in large part because the monopoly daily newspaper in these parts (and the alleged public broadcasters) couldn't be arsed properly covering any election not involving John Banks.
Key & Goff are expressing contempt for Participatory Democracy to their superior position as Representatrives in a Representative Democracy.
Really? I thought they were more transparently lame attempts to dodge a bullet without telling the Press Gallery to go pleasure themselves.
-
Knuckles The Malevolent Nun
Whoa! Flashback. :)
-
anybody who asserts that ethnicity is an entirely internal property is somewhat out of date.
I agree. I think our concepts have not kept up at all.
We're using ethnicity as a signifier for belonging to a group that is assumed to signifcantly affect the way we live. I understand the primary purpose for the gathering of ethnicity statistics is to measure inequalities and guide practice accordingly - especially notable in health.
However, people's lives and motivations have always been more complex, and especially today when the groups and communities we belong to are multiple, connected online and not so tied by locality or ancestry. Differences within groups are far more significant, and evolve faster than they used to. There can be vast gulfs of experience between first and second generation migrants, and between generations in any community.
Different parts of who I am and where I belong come to the fore at different times, as the Irish political example shows. Nationality is just one of those layers of identity, but it does have certain fixed meanings at times.
As Tze Ming noted in a sublime post at the time of the "write NZer" campaign:
For plenty of people (yes, even ethnic minorities), ethnicity doesn't matter as much as their national identity as a New Zealander. It doesn't mean they don't have an ethnicity as well. For others, their identity as, for example, a Deaf person is more important than either their New Zealand identity or their ethnicity.
But it doesn't meant they're going to turn up at Customs and present their Deaf Association membership card to get back into the country.
She also reprints campaign material that should help explain why the matter became associated with and coloured by certain Pakeha subgroups and perspectives.
-
Using generalisation to create categorise for analysis in statistical models to predict trends leads to less than perfect results.
Geez, try saying that ten times while tapping your head and rubbing your belly.Surely with todays technology we don't need to use generalisations such as ethnicity. What defines you, in everyday sociological terms, are, rarely,the habits, beliefs or behaviour of your great grandparents and their ancestors. You may identify with these social mores, even to the point of being a member of a tribal grouping, but in terms of how the state plans for the future workings of society, they are of little use.
So. I propose that the information gathered by the state in a census could well do without questions of ethnicity and, instead, concentrate more on questions of a more individual nature.
-
Using generalisation to create categories for......
grrrr -
I support calls for more use of "categories for grrr".
-
I applaud Scott's illustrated take on the referendum.
-
Just to muddy the waters rather more on the ethnicity thing, while I was hunting out a reference for Islander, I stumbled across the following reference
Tuohey (1990) analysed the labelling of Maori & Pakeha in the Otago Witness from 1851 until 1927. For a good portion of this time, Dunedin was NZ's largest city, so an important paper.
Anyway, up until 1900 New Zealander referred to Maori (also captured in the 1965 Shorter Oxford listing the first definition of New Zealander as "aborigine of New Zealand"); and Pakeha was by far the most common way to refer post 1900 to refer to a European, succeeding the terms 'colonist' and 'european'... -
*Very* interesting James - I understand 'settler' was going out over the same time span as 'colonist' and 'European'?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.