Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Not much at all.
Democracy is a bottom up affair, not one that can be imposed.
Imposing a democracy is an incoherent concept.
-
democracy isn't the only or most effective method of governance in the world
Crikey, Che! Them's fighting words....
this dogmatic preoccupation with 'democracy at any cost' is getting ordinary people brutally killed
... but this is more defensible.
Nevertheless, I like the Amartya Sen line on democracy. India hasn't had a famine since independence. It has had real hunger, but not famine, because under a democracy governments are held to account.
-
We specialised in girls rather than boys, and number three arrived within twenty minutes of number two, so our experience differs from yours in some ways.
But...
Number one was (is!) an angel. Well behaved, thoughtful, intellectual (which is highly regarded in our over-educated household), a reader, astonishes us with her ideas. She had a few tantrums when she was about two, so we would put her in her room, and after a few minutes she would put herself into bed, and go to sleep. At night, she would sit in her bed and look through picture books, and then go to sleep with no problems. These days we have to scold her to get her to put the light out instead of reading 'til all hours of the night. Lovely. Isn't she wonderful, we thought, and aren't we wonderful parents.
Oh dear.
Our younger daughters are scamps. One is an utter charmer, and the other is thoroughly determined. They had a revolting spell of finger painting with... well... you really don't want to know. They delight in playing tricks, and if they can't get their own way, a good fit of heart rending sobs is on instant order. We had to put them in separate rooms, to try to put a dampener on the parties that started every night after we put them to bed. They are trouble, and they will continue to be trouble.
Second (and in our case third) children are specially designed as a punishment for parental hubris.
-
Great post, Manakura. I especially like the way that you point out that Maori would love to be subject to the rule of law – Foreshore and Seabed case anyone? Wouldn’t it have been great if the legal process had been allowed to run through, instead of being ruled out of court.
Reading English’s speech, and your post, I think your analysis is fair enough. I wouldn’t be quite so inclined to dismiss the ‘recognised in public culture’ claim, in part because I think the point that English makes at the start of the speech, that..
The popular media play a vital role in reinforcing and broadening this shared culture. It takes local twists and global turns through BroTown and Desperate Housewifes, Che Fu and the Rolling Stones World Tour, National Radio and The Edge. Popular culture is hugely diverse, eclectic, high volume, and seductive.
… is quite important. Acceptance in popular culture does enable / facilitate cross-cultural understanding (horrible term, which implies that cultures are sharp edged, but I can’t quite think of better term right now). I think also that Maori culture is having a recognisable impact on Pakeha culture – look at the way that New Zealanders happily recognise and use concepts like ‘mana’ and ‘whanau’ and ‘hui’. And it’s not mere window dressing for tourists – the words and more importantly the concepts have become common koine. I know it’s only small beer, but it’s important – it signals the growth and change of the majority culture in response to a minority culture.
But that's a mere quibble. I think the most interesting discussion (in your post) is around whether Te Tiriti should be part of a written constitution. I don’t. It either entrenches a 19th understanding of relations between various groups in this country, or it leads to endless and probably fruitless debates about the meanings of the words in the treaty. And that’s without worrying about iwi and hapu who didn’t sign Te Tiriti in the first place.
I think there’s a better way to proceed, and that’s by understanding ‘constitution’ as a verb, not a noun. We constitute ourselves in a continued, on-going negotiation and renegotiation about the way we understand ourselves, and ourselves in relation to other peoples and groups within and without this country. Te Titiri is perhaps one of the earliest statements in this negotiation, the land marches another one, the Foreshore and Seabed Act yet another one. Even the on-going discussion about the Maori seats is part of this negotiation and renegotiation.
This is a profoundly uncomfortable way to live. Nothing is ever settled, or final. So there’s an on-going state of tension. But I suspect that creative and new ways of understanding ourselves and each other are much more likely to come out of this state of tension, than out of a written constitution entrenching the Treaty.
There’s a great book by a Canadian academic that explores these ideas, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity by James Tully. Tully argues that the process of writing, then discarding, then rewriting, then rediscarding, treaties (exemplified by the treaties signed by First Nations in North America) is just a process of ‘doing constitution’ (my term, not Tully’s), and we should continue to engage in it. I’m not so keen on the treaty idea, in part because I think a treaty entrenches an us and them mentality – the parties to it become strangers to each other – but I do like the idea of the continuing renegotiation. And I think it might fit better with your ideal of
a foundation of shared social, cultural and political-economic objectives … a kaupapa that is specific, practical and pragmatic.
Thanks for the post, Manakura. It’s been great thinking about these issues.
-
You can build as many boats as you like, you can own a few boats (but not too many), you can steer the boat now and then, but you better not ever rock the boat.
Nice, Yamis.
-
How... how.. how... how the hell did that happen?!!
-
So looking at our last three performances, and the current one, there's only one thing to say:
Bracewell must go!
It's a case study in how to take a group of talented players, working together as a reasonably cohesive unit, and turn them into a rabble.
-
but then, howard should be voted out at the next election.
Well, yes, provided there's a viable alternative to vote for.
-
I'm old.
I'm so old that I can't really txt.
I don't understand.
Could someone please tell me what an 'emo kid' is?
-
I have been waiting to join this discussion all day - I can't quite bring myself to post from work. But now the kids are fed, washed and in bed, I have poured myself a glass of wine, and I'm ready to start doing real work.
is he [Sharp] an assimilationist because he genuinely wants a 'single nation' nzl that is a melange of all peoples, or because he doesn't like maori?
having spoken to sharp a bunch of times i'm inclined to think the former, and i get the same vibe from english (philosophically speaking). it is however a viewpoint i can't agree with. assimilation is assimilation, minorities always lose.I'm not so sure about that, Che. I guess my concern would be that if we don't have a little bit of assimilation, or at least some cross cultural fertilisation, or maybe a melange that allows room for difference, then we go to the other extreme, of sharply individuated cultures, in the mode of Kukathas' The Liberal Archipelago. And the problem with Kukathas' liberal archipelago is that group rights necessarily trump individual rights. Kukathas claims that if individuals have a right of exit (and by that he means a formal right, not a substantive right), then group rights don't trump individual rights, but I think that although that might be nice in theory, in practice (and afterall, political theories should work in the real world, no?) it's not enough to allow only a formal right of exit. Hence the need for some degree of cultural exchange.
This is not to say that assimilation a la the 1950s in New Zealand, or the more recent version dragged stinking from the grave by Dr Brash, wasn't a very bad thing indeed. It wasn't cultural exchange - it was 'there should be one rule for all, and it had bloody well better be European rule'.
I think English has a good point - there is a degree of reverse assimilation going on, if only in tiny forms so far, like the casual use of words of te reo in everyday discourse. In fact is such a small degree thus far that it would be better to describe it as cross cultural fertilisation. Nevertheless, I think the cultures gathered here are now creating something new, which might provide a basis for binding us all together, while allowing us our differences.
Do minorities always lose? Absolutely, under Brash-style assimilation. But in terms of creating something new which forms a basis for the ties that bind, or at least a mode of living together - I'm not so sure.
I think that this sort of view allows for something different from the liberal archipelago, and in particualr, it allows individuals the ability to be part of more tahn one culture. Someone else on this thread (Manakura?) has mentioned that he is both Maori and pakeha, and there can't be too many of us these days who don't have family members who are, or who have married into, other cultures. We simply don't have distinct edges between cultural groups anymore.
My worry is that if we talk of minority groups as though they are hard edged, well-defined groups, and reject the possibility of merging into each other, then we end up where Kukathas has positioned us.
I'll take the rosy tinted glasses off now....