I don't know what I did to deserve this thread... oh that's right, I called Che a 'big cracker'! This must be his bleached flour-based revenge.
What bugged me was the stereotypical Englishmen - Hilary was on a British expedition, and flew the Union Flag!
He sure did. I thought I'd leave the English to be bugged by that!
The sound is a bit crap, but you probably remember all the dialogue anyway. "Where I come from Tenzing, there's no such word as asumpowtcha!"
Any Nepali speakers able to verify that?
When my dad was a kid in Malaysia, his Indian schoolteachers always made the usual unsubtle postcolonising inferences that Tenzing had made it to the top before Hillary, or that he had to step aside at the last few feet for the white man, but that revealing the truth would of course would have led to the fall of the British Empire.
It fell anyway.
True or not, this ad, although uncompromisingly adorable, grated a little on my SEAsian postcolonial dad, in its portrayal of Sherpa Tenzing as being terrified of the journey and wanting to turn back.
Our heart may be with Hillary in this canonical narrative, but some of us are always going to be wishing better times for that generically brown kid symbolising the sidekick tag-along of the postcolonial partnership.
You'd be hard pressed to find a more stirring and representative slice of this classic form of New Zealand nationalism though. My brother still eats Weetbix daily; it's always kind of made me gag a little.
The way I see it is that New Zealand has a bunch of stores that sell international varieties of food, gadgets or housewares. We happily buy them, we display them, we talk about them, and we use them to demonstrate how global and hip we are, but underneath the veneer is the same old monoculture.
Now before I go getting any hackles up, how many of you reading this speak a language other than English? How many of you have lived in a non-English-speaking country for more than a trip to 'see the sights'.
uh... 我？ (moi?)
20%+ of Auckland and *at least* 30%+ of Auckland respectively? I take your point - Auckland (and Wellington) are a bit crappier than Melbourne in terms of 'mainstreamed' multiculturalism, but I think your comment says more about the readership and System-participation base of Public Address who you're writing for (the assumed monocultural 'we' in your blogpost, which obviously includes 'you', you big cracker, but doesn't include... me?) than whether the population of Auckland is 'monocultural'. You're the expert on whether Pakeha or white Australians are more deeply or shallowly 'multicultural' than each other... but I think rather a lot of people here don't buy 'international' food to prove how global and hip 'we' are. We buy it because that's our food. You big cracker.
Disclaimer: Che Tibby has repeatedly referred to himself on his own blog as a "big cracker". Use of the epithet "big cracker" to describe Mr Tibby is cross-referentially ironic and not intended to offend.
D'oh! An oversight - yep, I like that one too. And of course Daniel Malone's one is difficult to draw... Malone's is interesting in that it keeps the Union Jack in an acknowledgement of the original Treaty partnership. Some Maori, ten, fifteen years ago, were interested in preserving a visual representation of that - although I'm sure plenty of younger ones today, and republicans, wouldn't care for it that much. And I think plenty of Pakeha probably resent having to be reminded that their ancestors are from somewhere other than here... as implied by The Pakeha Identity Thread That Would Not Die.
I understand that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does make provision for judicial determination of customary rights to the foreshore and seabed.
Stephen is right; the FSA 'foreclosed any further exploration on that front.' It removed the common law rights of Maori to seek declarations of customary title to the foreshore and seabed in the Maori Land court, providing a different system to seek “territorial customary rights” and “customary rights orders”, which are about customary use of land, which are not equal to property rights. Customary title implies ownership.
I never visited Mad Ave, but I increasingly get the impression that comparisons between it and McGehan Close are preposterous. The major reason for its namecheck seems to be that it is in Helen Clark's electorate.
I only mentioned Mad Ave as part of a joke - I agree, they don't compare well at all, and any actual comparison does a real disservice to the proactive and positive community forces at work in Owairaka.
But yep, as pointed out by dc_red, Owairaka may be indisputably cradled in the armpit of Mt Albert, but McGehan Close itself is part of the all-devouring Roskill electorate (we used to be a *borough*, knowwaddi'msayin?). Owairaka was the name of Helen Clark's electorate in the random re-drawing/gerrymander(?) of 1996 which 'disappeared' both Mt Albert and Mt Roskill, possibly just to annoy her and Phil Goff. So perhaps Key got a little confused in the attempt to find the rot at the heart of Red Territory, or maybe just got lost on the way to his South Auckland of the Mind.
Ultimately though, Roskill & Mt Albert are the Red Belt for the same reasons as South Auckland is - because of lower middle and working class non white people looking out for their interests. Forgetting the ludicrous plays of the PR war, and the race to find the next 'worst street in the country', there's nothing misleading about residents pointing at a street in the neighbourhood and saying - 'well it's a bit crap here actually. Civilisation isn't collapsing or anything, but we could do better. Isn't that why we vote Labour?' Of course, I doubt they're so stupid as to think the National Party is going to offer them anything better (selling the backs of their babies heads for corporate sponsorship space to pay for their breakfast perhaps?).
But hell, I've just seen I/S on norightturn defending the Labour Party's poverty figures against National, despite when the Social Report came out last year, him leaping on the same rise in the 'extreme poverty' figure that Key is weilding, and bashing Labour round the head with it (as did I in the SST). I'm actually fairly pleased with this week's 'work for dole'/'underclass' punts by the Maori Party and National, because at least it's bringing these issues to the fore for (if we're lucky) parties to compete over on policy points. Maybe it'll make Labour try harder. We can only hope.
he better stop refering to it as being in "South Auckland"
It's SouthWestCentral, mUthAfuKKaZ! Where the Roskill Rock meets the Albert Hardass place.
Today's Herald looks deeper into the multi-ethnic locally driven community development that's been happening in Owairaka since the infamous Somali:Tongan stabbing of 2002 (resolved, less famously, through constructive community conciliation). Some good, and pretty typical details and quotes, on how they've scraped around to find public funding of things as simple as a community garden and a local basketball tournament. I wonder if those community leaders are asking themselves: 'so... is John Key going to give us the cash then? Cough up, white boy!' I expect, that once Key gets around to formulating some policy to go with the rhetoric shift (you'd think they'd be honour-bound to do so, but you never know), he'll end up pushing private rather than public funding of community development projects, for sheer lack of a point of difference. After all, Mad Ave was literally erased - perhaps McGehan Close could bloom into Vodafone Parade.
Here's an email from a Maori roll voter in Tamaki Makaurau:
I don't expect the work-for-dole concept to survive debate on the marae, which according to Maori Party tikanga anyway, should occur before the MP's drop a vote on it in the House, or confirm it as an Official Party Policy. Pita will listen, and I would be very surprised if he or the Maori Party will push the work-for-dole idea very far.
I agree with you - the trail leads back to something like the Community Employment Group. The Brash time-warp may have put us back a few years, but if Pita wants to cut the benefit-depedency strings, Iwi-based community development & employment projects promise more for Maori and NZ than work-for-dole (a tired and suckful idea that doesn't work for all the reasons you and others have pointed out).
As for the Maori Party swinging right, left, up, down, wherever; they'll go where they're told... I think. And I don't think Maori are currently inclined to demand right-wing policies. Maybe one day, but not just yet.
For my part I'll be telling Pita: "No work-for-dole, Yes iwi-based community development and employment projects".
if I recall correctly the number of longterm unemployed as a percentage of overall unemployed probably isn't decreasing. I could be mistaken here but I think you'll find that while, absolute numbers of long term unemployed may be decreasing, because frictional and other short term unemployment is very very low right now, the long term component of overall unemployment is probably higher than usual.
I won't pretend to know what frictional unemployment is, but, failing to find an easy line-graph, I have just done rough calculations of the long-term unemployed figures for September 2006 (20% of all unemployed), 2005 (19.6%) and 2004 (22%). I can't find previous Septembers, but June 2002 is about 28%, June 2001 about 30%. This is all from the Household Labour Force Survey. And here's slightly longer view from the Social Report 2006, also based on the HLFS:
In 2005, 22 percent of the surveyed unemployed ...had been unemployed for a continuous period of six months or more [the standard classification for 'long term'], a decline from 23 percent in 2004. The 2005 level of long-term unemployment was just under that recorded in 1986 (23 percent) and substantially lower than the peak of 53 percent in 1992.
As far as I can tell, there has been a fall in the proportion of long-term unemployment as a percentage of all unemployment in the last six years.