Posts by Yamis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
On the census, for statistical purposes, they want to know how you identify your ethnicity
The key word there is identify.
If somebody is a quarter Maori and three quarters European and ticks the Maori box then they are omitting three quarters of their blood line. Because they identify with their Maori ethnicity and not their European ethnicity.
Because they don't identify with it and I doubt anybody here would get all uptight with them and say "it's not useful for census information" or words to that effect.
And so what is the difference with somebody who had 8 great grandparents from various places around Europe not identifying with Europe?
Again, if it is to collect valuable and important information on health issues and for planning purposes then they should ask people to write down the ethnicities of their 4 grand parents or 8 great grandparents or something but if it's about what ethnicities you identify with and giving people the choice of which ones they pick or not pick then I hope people aren't sitting on horses that are too high off the ground and desist with the redneck word unless they want to use it to describe every single person who has ever omitted any of their blood lines on a census form.
From statistics New Zealand:
The ethnic concept used for the 1995–97, 2000–02, and 2005–07 life tables is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with, or feel they belong to. Ethnicity is self-perceived and people can belong to more than one ethnic group. For example, people may identify with the Māori ethnicity even though they may not be descended from a Māori ancestor. Conversely, people may choose to not identify with the Māori ethnicity even though they are descended from a Māori ancestor. Ethnicity does not equate with birthplace.
-
I do have a problem with people who suggest that being a "New Zealander" is an ethnicity, however. It's not. It's either a refusal to define oneself in terms of ethnicity at all (which is valid), or it is a subtle way of reinforcing the view that "real New Zealanders" are white immigrants from the UK and Ireland (which is not valid, and is precisely what Paul Henry's comments were aimed at.)
You might have to excuse my writing because I think I'm high on paint fumes, tile cement fumes and grouting fumes. Hope it makes sense. And apologies for getting into this debate which RB was saving for later I think. I don't even feel in the mood for an argument so I'll be civil :)
I'd fall into the first category that you mention above I guess. I couldn't care who declares themselves a "New Zealander" in the census. They could be a few months off a plane from Guatemala for all I care. And not Dr Ropata coming back either.
What I'm unhappy with is the unspoken belief that to be a "real New Zealander" you have to give up your qualifying description of who you are as a New Zealander: you can't be a "Maori New Zealander" or a "Pakeha New Zealander" or a "French New Zealander" or an "Indian New Zealander" because these qualifiers somehow make you less of a New Zealander in the process. That is, fundamentally, what I object to-I am just as much a New Zealander for identifying as a pakeha as my sister is for identifying as Maori. Our differences don't make our nationality any less valid for either of us.
You don't have to give up your qualifying description. If somebody wants to put "Maori New Zealander" or "French New Zealander" then they can.
I've used this same argument here before but nothing like recycled thought. My daughter was born in New Zealand to myself, a honky, and a Korean mum. So what's she? A Korean? A European? A Korean New Zealander? A Korean European New Zealander? And if she marries somebody who is half Greek and half Fijian then what ethnicity are her children going to put on the census form? She will get to choose at the end of the day but if she feels no connection to Europe or Korea then why try to compartmentalise her into an irrelevant box as to who she is as a person? (I don't even know what I just wrote :) )
Many people, hundreds of thousands of NZers have blood from a variety of places and they CHOOSE which one(s) they feel they are, like hypothetically a Samoan who is a quarter Chinese ticking "Samoan" on the census form.
If people can choose to omit ethnicities they don't particularly identify with then how's choosing "New Zealander" any different? I've just omitted the "European" bit.
And how far back should people go? If they were born in NZ, and their parents, and grand parents, and great grand parents were as well, where does it stop?
To finish off, I realise that some people may have been motivated by some sort of nationalistic, white pride, white sheets and burning crosses, ideas when they chose "New Zealander" on the last census form but I effing well was not!
I'm hoping for some sort of question on what you identify as/nationality in the next census then I'll happily go back to letting the bean counters in Wellington know that my great grand parents came to NZ from Scotland, Wales and England and that that probably makes me prone to sun burn and whiskey so they can spend more money on skin cancer specialists and liver transplant facilities.
-
I hear swimming is better for the joints than running so maybe "we" could all go take a long walk off a short pier.
Gonna be kicking back tonight eating potato chips, drinking booze and watching other people run round in the rain in chch and OZ. Go the ABs and Warriors.
-
Exactly Edward, at best there will be two or three thousand watching these games on big screens down there. If it is going to make or break the tournament then go drown me in the Waitemata right now.
Party central in Auckland will be a teeny, tiny bit of the 2011 WC. Do people honestly think that a game played in Palmerston North between Argentina and Georgia (yep that's the actual clash on the 18th of Sep) will be overshadowed by some rain in the viaduct or other insignificant wankery 400 km's away?
It won't even be on the radar.
We are worried about whether the players will be wearing green or blue underpants.
I was in Korea in 2002 for the football WC and there were 50,000 people at some of the outdoor big screen venues and do people sit back remembering that?
Nup.
-
There will be extensive liquor industry involvement either way, is what you're telling us. :)
I'm looking for a sponsor.
At this stage it's looking like being my current one which is the Ministry of Education.
We have this deal whereby I manage 120 teenagers each day in exchange for beer vouchers, or money as they call it. Sometimes I have to waste it on food, electricity bills and other nonsense.
-
Jim Hickey here...
Just a minor point but the weather might not be TOOOO bad. Tournament runs from September 9 to October 23 which is in spring, not winter.
September is the 4th wettest month (116mm) after July, June and August, while October is the 3rd driest month (91mm) with only January and February drier.
High and low average temps are 9 - 16 in September and 10.5 - 18 in October. When the games are on in the evenings it'll be somewhere in the middle you'd guess.
I'd rather be outdoors in Auckland in those months than certain other parts of NZ at the same time of the year. But I'm fairly confident I'll be either on my couch boozed as hell watching on TV or at a mates house boozed as hell watching on TV or at Russells boozed as hell hiding in the bushes watching on TV through the window.
-
The New Zealand Football Championship needs a bit of slack here. It's hard enough running a domestic football competition in NZ without having to try and run our bloody film industry as well.
-
I'm quietly confident that the S Koreans will account for Nigeria and that Greece will lose (or at best draw) with Argentina.
But what chance of two predictions coming right in consecutive games? probably none.
As an aside on the radio sports news earlier this evening they were saying what Nigeria needed to do to go through rather than what S Korea needs to do (when S Korea is in a better position to go through). I realise that the Korean listenership is probably damn low but we do have a healthy Korean population in NZ of about 30,000. Do our media take these things into consideration? pfffft
-
Michael Jones wasn't reknowned for cheating at the breakdown was he? More for beautiful running, passing and smashing tackles. Kronfeld on the other hand dipped his hands in there a bit more. McCaw is a master of it.
What would probably help a bit would be all players wearing elbow pads like skateboarders, helmets with face protectors and rather than wearing shirts your teams colours are painted on.
I bet there was no shirt pulling in that nude rugby game in the weekend. Though there may have been some tackles tackled.
-
What a day for NZ soccer - I'm saving already for Brazil 2014.
It'll be great watching us defending our title there.