if indeed osama does use the term 'liberal' (or Arabic equivalent), do you suppose that he's using it much like western conservatives use 'PC'?
a catch-all for anything your listeners don't quite get, but are 'agin'?
and can someone explain the origin of the 'osama's plan was to bankrupt the USA by drawing them into afghanistan' mythology? doesn't that tie into his grand scheme?
jeremy. LOL. and on the same vein i was intending to refer to.
perhaps the circumstantial evidence will further our concern with the feminist conspiracy. they do not suffer such amputation, after all.
"they're trying to keep us men under control"
sounds like the m.ward gig in wellingtown was much more civilised. there was some seating for the majority 30+ crowd, not too packed in etc.
we had seats at a leaner just behind the sound-stage. couldn't see the guitar on account of the unnaturally tall audience, but figured "hey, this isn't about the light-show".
best gig for years though would have to be the Mint Chicks and the Kings Arms with RB and Mr. Slack. speakers spontaneouly combusting are v.rare indeed.
ben and mark, i'll have to agree about the irrelevance of the constitutional/territorial models for nzl. i dismissed the sth african and canadian models pretty early in the thesis because they tend to associate 'culture' or 'nationality' too strongly with place.
homelands, reservations, 'marae-as-place-to-be-maori' and the like act to conserve minority groups. minorities continue to exist, but only within their menagerie. what they also allow for is detractors of minority rights to say is "you can be as different as you want in private [i.e. on the marae], but out here in public you'll tow the majority like'. which we'll recognise as the "brash/bassett" position.
it's also the position taken in relation to aboriginal people in australia. one that continues to fail them miserably.
my favoured liberal authors instead argue that the basis of any minority-majority interrelationship is a recognition that both groups require a public space in which to conduct their own politics. that's what the territorial models are trying to do in a roundabout, 19th century kind of way and failing at.
the unique thing about nzl is that we have both maori and mainstream conducting its politics in the same public space, or 'public sphere' to use a jargonism. nzl civil society does or should allow both cultures to be practised in public, politically and non, and this ensures the perpetuation of both cultures.
what i'm driving at, in plain english, is that giving effect to the treaty requires the acceptance that maori voices have to continue to be heard right up close to mainstream voices. they'll often be in the same room, in the same political debates, and will often irk people who don't understand them.
and if you don't understand them? well, just don't get paranoid. they're probably not even talking about you anyhow!
mark, just guesswork.
and i'm inclined to agree and disagree about the canadian. the main variable that distinguishes canada from here is territorial separation as you indicate (often the tribes/bands negotiating with the crown have very distinct parcels of land). the system works because on 'indian land' the majority knows what goes, in a 'when in rome' kind of way.
what i have read about canada suggests that off the reservation though, things aren't so rosey.
OTOH nzl is too intermixed to really have that idea work at all. the differentiated citizenship really has to be wrapped up inside a universal, shared vernacular.
so the political authority we're talking about almost *always* comes back down to the rights and obligations of maori and crown under the treaty, and within the same sovereignty, i.e. back to square one, because it is representative of all parties.
furthermore, it's really not all that hard to interpret. 1. crown's in charge, 2. maori get the final say over their own culture and things they think are important, 3. everyone has equal rights.
it's not rocket science.
ok, debs, i myself can post all day because i took a week off work. why? to write a play.
it'll doubtless be awful.
as we both agree i think we wrote the same phd, but in different disciplines (and i've an inkling mark b. is writing a similar one as well).
i agree that a little "assimilation" isn't a bad thing, but disagree that assimilation is the term for what you're describing. this is because assimilation always involves the absorption of the minority into the majority, and that's whether its a deliberate (i.e. political) process, or a voluntary cultural blending.
absorption means that a minority can no longer self-perpetuate because it has lost all distinctiveness. and i'm certain it's the threat to self-perpetuation that most threatens nzl maori.
i agree with mark that cultures and nations don't have static edges, but are porous, meaning that when you place them in proximity like you have in nzl, you get cross-pollination as you suggest. this is a good thing.
the trick is finding some way to maintain the healthy cross-pollination, while also maintaining some semblance of cultural distinctiveness for all groups. i.e. new zealanders stay new zealanders, and maori stay new zealanders and maori.
so far nzl has been very good at this, with our sensible blend of informal reinforcement and quasi-constitutional methods?
PS. i've always thought kukathas is just a cog in the larger machinery of liberal group rights. he contributes to the general argument that all cultural groups in a nation-state have to be liberal (or as liberal as possible) for said nation-state to function, viz. kymlicka.
E, i've done stage one of the Vic Uni course (paid for by work), and i'm thinking of shelling my own money for the 2nd stage. pretty useful.
RB, i think pretty much *any* term can be used as a put down, e.g. "oh, so you're *rich and successful* are you..." if someone on a marae is going to be an asshole, then an asshole they'll be. that said, i agree, 'tauiwi' shits me a little. it kind of stinks of 90s-pc-revisionism.
i am a new zealander.
that term in itself distinguishes me being of european descent, formerly colonial, likely to have ties with maori. in a way we are all new zealanders, like our tea-planter cousins dictate, but the content of being a new zealander is bigger than the stingy, racist diatribes you find scattered about remuera.
and if you give juha a guest post, how about mark b. as well, i've a sneaking suspicion he's at harvard.
span, dunno, i reckon that's probably a further mythology of the word. for one, 'bugger' and 'pakeha' don't sound anything alike. if someone could correct me, wouldn't a transliteration of 'bugga' be 'paka'. 'buggery' would be 'pakari'?
and mike, always good to kick off a friendly debate with a statement of positions!
what seems to distinguish the 'english' and 'brash' positions, to my understanding, was the degree to which the minority influenced the majority as it assimilated.
so yes, assimilation was the outcome, but in the english position, the majority evolves under the influence minority assimilation. in the brash position all minorities became like the majority.
an example of the former is the assimilation of migrant peoples into white colonial society in australia during the 1950s-1980s period. the nature of australian society changed dramatically during that time. not all of which can be attributed to the presence of a sizable "wog" population (globalisation being an obvious variable), but a heck of a lot of the cosmopolitan attitudes of major australian cities are.
the "english position" if we can separate that from the man, seems to advocate a similar line using polynesian cultures, i.e. "assimilating maori and pacific islanders will permanently change white new zealand's culture, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing".
and, will try to read that sharp article.
a linguist told me that phonetically 'pa-ke-ha' breaks down into "feels different".
'white pork' is a anti-maori-rights backlash meme floated in the 80s.
mark, i agree completely. andrew sharp has always been an assimilationist in very liberal garb. but it's hard to know what the motivation is. is he 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.
brash and bassett? the complete opposite. they're also fond of a heterogenous nzl, but one where eevryone plays by the same rules.
their rules that is.
but the australian model? i could not disagree more. the common law/black letter law approach has failed aboriginal people miserably. it's been exploited by howard to undermine aboriginal rights at every, single, opportunity in favour of hard assimilation, ie "be brown-skinned white men, no other alternative is offered".
and manakura, again, i agree. it's the *real* white man's burden, you can't take take the piss without looking like a colonial oppressor... sigh... ah well, at least i'm easily employable and tend to get paid more than everyone else. :)