John, thank you for taking the time to think about this, however I must again point out (as I've had to do every time I've popped up on this thread) that 'Asian' is not an ethnicity, but it *is* a pan-ethnic category that I am happy for my ethnicity to be placed within by Statistics NZ. 'Asian' is a group that has relevance to specific ethnicities that StatsNZ acknowledges and counts inside of it. 'Asian' is not a tick box on the Census: 'Chinese' and 'Indian' are. And yes, New Zealand is a very nice place, and a liberal democracy, like many other parts of the world.
National identity can become an ethnic group - at least according to my reading of the ethnicity definition used by Stats NZ (See bottom). Sure, it makes things a little confusing, but in a well designed questionaire one should be able to select multiple identities as most people do have multiple ethnic or other identities.
That is certainly a fair point. Still, despite all the definition and invention of 'New Zealand' identity and/or ethnicity going on in this thread, it does still look, walk, smell, swim and quack like good ol' postcolonial Pakeha to me.
Mmmmm! back to the original blog which was about
the word Asians being non specific as far as race or ethnicity is concerned.I couldn't agree more, and the same applies to European.
I'm afraid that is not what the original blog was about John. 'Asian' may not be specific as an ethnic group, but it is broadly *accurate* as a pan-ethnic category that ultimately relates back to ethnicity. Several comments on this thread (and numerous less coherent and/or civilised emails to myself) are functioning under the mistaken impression that I object to the use of the 'Asian' category by Statistics NZ or the media, and that therefore I'm on common ground with 'Europeans' who don't want to be classified as 'Europeans'. This is not the case - I'm pleased and proud to be counted as an 'Asian' in the Census - just constantly aware that many non-'Asians' using the term use it incorrectly and for questionable and misleading purposes. So no, if you're a Pakeha who wrote in 'New Zealander' rather than Pakeha or just ticking 'European', I'm afraid you cannot count on my words to support you.
my current Passport simply states that I am a New Zealand Citizen. ergo I am a New Zealander. Q.E.D
What a coincidence, so am I! But the Census does not ask you to fill in your citizenship in the ethnicity question. It's quite heartwarming to see all the Pakeha here on this thread describing and affirming their national identity, but national identity is not actually ethnicity, and Pakeha ethnicity is not 'New Zealand' national identity. What does the reluctance to draw this distinction say? I mean, for you liberal Pakeha Public Address types, your specifically Pakeha ethnic traits (ie inherited from Europe and modified for New Zealand, such as speaking *English* as your mother tongue, having *Christmas*, dressing your schoolgirls in *tartan*, eating with *knives and forks*, promoting Humeian *empiricism* and various forms of *positivism*) are probably far less important to your sense of personal identity than your national identity as a New Zealander (apparently based on the psychology of landscape? Okay, we'll take it for argument's sake). Fine and dandy! No-one's telling you that your ethnicity has to be more important than your national identity, and no-one's forcing you to choose one over the other simply by asking a Census question - we have plenty of other opportunities to state and affirm our national identity. So why pretend one *is* the other? That's actually rather unfair to the rest of us.
Che: Why have you said that there isn't a 'name' for nationalism and national identity, as opposed to ethnicity? I don't understand. And haven't we been through this "kiwi" thing already? When Asians say it to each other, we are generally talking about Pakeha. Until the New Zealand white folk can agree that other people should just call them Pakeha, we can't use 'kiwi' amongst our minority communities to mean 'everyone'. Or we won't have a name for Pakeha. If you see what I mean.
"350,000 'Asians' aren't actually one ethnic group". Well, neither are "Europeans" or "white people". I don't get Mok's umbrage.
Probably because I was playing tetris Sir Mark, rather than giving or taking umbrage... plink!
I don't have any objection to the aggregation of the 'Asian' statistic in the overall Census summary - it's neither stated nor gathered as an ethnic group, and there's good data on the ethnic breakdown within the 'Asian' category which is valuable, interesting, and of course usually ignored. But StatsNZ itself does pretty well by our peeps. "Europeans" are also obviously not an actual ethnic group, and neither are "Pacific Peoples". However, people who wrote in "New Zealander" were specifically claiming "New Zealander" as their unitary ethnic group - no argument there, correct? Hence the point in this blog that the Maori demographer should be less worried about the 'overtaking' of Maori by a conglomerated population that isn't actually an ethnic group, than by a group that says that it is specifically an ethnic group, and maybe even an 'indigenous' one at that.
gets her panties into such a wad
Ew. Messr rodgerd, as a moderator on this site, could I ask you to refrain from bringing my blameless perineum into this?
DC's article was astonishingly retro, but should we not take heart that the response was not?
Absolutely - 'The Movement' has come a long way since 1993, and most of the media has come along for the ride. It helps that the Invaders have infiltrated the MSM with our many octopoid tentacles, and receive strategic coordinated instructions from a centralised hive mind disguised as the Yifans DDR machine.
that identity is context, is very much the way many Maori see identity, for example how we mihi (i.e. formally acknowledge our ancestry and kinship net) can change depending on what marae we are speaking on. However, the idea generally is to establish and emphasise your connection to that place, rather than your separateness.
Interesting comparison - I think that in most public informal 'identify-yourself' circumstances, whether in the ancestral country that perceives them as 'whitened' or at 'home' in the diaspora 'white' country, diaspora non-whites tend to be asked in different ways 'what kind of Other are you?' rather than 'how are you like Us?' Displacement is - well - displacing...
...not every journalist is a good journalist...
every time I read your blog, I learn something that makes the exciting-knowledge part of my brain tingle.
...er ...that Deborah Coddington is not a good journalist? That Keith tucks his t-shirts into his pants? In any case, happy to help.
Neither Nelson Mandela nor Aung San Suu Kyi are 'minorities'...
Where on earth is DC getting her statistics from?
Good question. The Statistics NZ figures show clearly that it is only pregnant Asian *teenagers* who display the 80+% abortion rate, compared with the 50+% abortion rate of pregnant Pakeha teenagers. Additionally, 'Asian' teenagers have the lowest pregnancy rate in the country. Here is the rather clear and concise summary of the statistical information that Coddington seemed unable to read.
In 2002, European women had an abortion ratio of 209, below the national average of 242, while Asian women had a ratio of 374. The corresponding ratios for Māori and Pacific women were 245 and 243, respectively. Among women aged under 20 years, Asian women had the highest crude abortion ratio (824 abortions per 1,000 known pregnancies), compared with European (534), Pacific (377) and Māori (331) women.
Quite apart from this, I wasn't aware that abortion was a crime, let alone an 'Asian crime.'
The ruling in which North & South/ACP media did not accept NZ Press Council jurisdiction (Winston Peters vs North & South) was in 1999. ACP has since become a member of the NZ Press Council,and North & South is now subject to its rulings.
Where Coddington went horribly wrong, of course, was failing to interview an actual recent immigrant (and pretending that one Chinese New Zealander who explicitly dissociates herself from those immigrants is representative of those immigrants)
Coddington did in fact interview Justin Zhang from Skykiwi.com and Lincoln Tan. It appears neither of them gave her the message she wanted, so she had to simply quote Lincoln's columns selectively, and find someone completely irrelevant instead.