Am I a racist ?

[kiwitt]

At the moment we have an election campaign going on and one party's policy is to treat all people equally. This policy is being deemed by some as "Racist".

Now in NZ we had a race of people called "Maori", who controlled most of the country before the Europeans arrived (e.g. similar to Native Indians in America). This race eventually merged into the European race due to marriage, etc., so that now the majority of people who call themselves "Maori", are less "Maori" then they are English, Scottish or other races.

It would appear that some significant wrongs were done to these people, well over 150 years ago and we are working through righting those wrongs, with the tribes. However, who is going to have to pay for these wrongs; the people who aren't "Maori", but all New Zealanders, including "Maori".

Now, I have a problem with this. Like Maori, I have a mixture of races in me, including one that was seriously wronged in the past. My grandfather had to work as a slave laborer in Germany, because he was a part "Jew". I think a 1/4 was. My grandmother on the otherside was "German". Now this would make me 1/4 German. Do I now sue my 1/4 German side that my 1/16 Jew side was wronged. Of course not.

That is why I think paying compensation to a race that is represented by people who are less of that race than they are other races is really wrong. People who are of this race can also claim special benefits, like free education, etc, even though they are less than 10% of that race.

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

[Goofball]

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

Certainly not. But one thing must be recognized: Past treatment of aboriginal populations by European settlers/colonists/pillagers/murderers (call us what you will) created a situation for these people where they have a great "need" for our continued help today.

So, it does not make you a racist if you want to deny the need to help them, but it may mean that you need to add a bit more depth to your analysis of the situation and your willingness to "help."

And please believe that I am not trying to insult you with my response. You have asked a very valid question, and it's something everybody in your situation should spend a little time reflecting upon.

[Tribesman]

What is the money for ? Is it penalties for breaches or infringements of the peace treaties that were signed with the Maori ?

[econ21]

I prefer helping people based on "need" as opposed to their "race" or "color".

Does this make me a Racist ?

No, it does not make you a Racist. But it does not necessarily make you right.

Outside of a socialist utopia (where I confess I might feel at home), entitlements are not solely based on "need".

Bill Gates is not rich because he needs to be, but because he earned it and he is entitled to keep what he earns (thankfully, he's giving a lot of it away to needy causes but I'm going off on a tangent here...).

If you take something from someone else by force, one might be forgiven for thinking they have some right to restitution. You mentioned the example of Jews and Germans - most people accept that returning expropriated property or making equivalent recompense to Jews surviving Nazi Germany would be wholly legitimate whether or not those surviving Jews actually needed it.

Now, yes, this does get awfully muddled when so many years have passed. No, we can't give America back to the Native Americans etc. Yes, we do have to draw the line somewhere. So we're not going to give NZ back to the Maoris, but I personally don't feel too aggrieved if the NZ government does give their ancestors some payback above and beyond what they "need".

[I confess your specific point about the fraction of Maori in a person does not really engage me. We presumably don't want to get into detailed and intrusive genetic examinations, so treating all people of Maori descent equally does not seem too offensive to me.]

Sorry if this seems all wishy-washy bleeding heart liberal. We live in a messy, imperfect world - the NZ government's actions seem a pretty decent stab at doing the right thing, subject to the realities on the ground.

[Papewaio]

What is the current ratio to be considered a Maori in NZ? At least 1/8 or more?

The Treaty of Waitangi is still applicable to the Maoris of the time and their descendents. That should be enforced.

As for on a needs basis that should be done as well. Unfortunately that will also cover a lot of Maori... maybe more, maybe less if the Treaty of Waitiangi is properly enforced and then the monetary benefits handled well.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hehe, you guys are seriously considering reparations! Dont let the aptly named African-Americans in this country hear about that..

[Strike For The South]

No Kiwitt you are not a racist and I believe you are right in not giving them money. What we (the white folk) did to these people was wrong but in this day and age it is sort of irrelaavent I mean its sort of like me going to denmark and saying you pilligad my lands raped my women and took my sofa give me money. Id get laughed at then get kicked in the teeth these men shouldn't be given a freehandout just because of there skin color

[Papewaio]

Hehe, you guys are seriously considering reparations! Dont let the aptly named African-Americans in this country hear about that..

There is a treaty that the British/Kiwis made with the Maoris many many moons ago:

Treaty of Waitangi

In response to a perceived threat of French annexation, Busby drew up, without authorisation from his superiors, a Declaration of Independence, which was signed by 34 northern chiefs. Additional signatures, including some from further south, were added over the next four years. This group referred to themselves in the Declaration as the Confederation of Chiefs of the United Tribes of New Zealand, although there is no evidence that the confederation was ever convened again, except at the time of the signing of the Treaty in 1840. It received a puzzled and rather lukewarm reception at the Colonial Office in England, which was well aware that New Zealand was not a British possession and did not want to take responsibility for it. The Colonial Office, advised by the missionary societies, was by no means convinced that there was a viable political authority in New Zealand with which it could form diplomatic relations. The Declaration was, however, acknowledged by the British Government. Some historians suggest it was not taken seriously until it proved to be an impediment to the annexation of New Zealand. It is thought that for this reason the document was used for calling up chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840. Other experts view the Declaration as an embryonic expression of Māori nationhood, which, in conjunction with other events in the 1820s and 1830s, shows that the Treaty of Waitangi was part of a negotiated relationship and not the beginning of European power and the end of Māori sovereignty.

In the English text of the Treaty, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

In the Māori text of the Treaty, Māori were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands "wenua", villages "kainga", and all their property/treasures "taonga katoa".

In the English text of the Treaty, Māori yielded to the Crown an exclusive right to purchase their land.

Māori agreed to give the Crown the right to buy land from them should Māori wish to sell it.
In the English text of the Treaty, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

In the Māori text of the Treaty, Māori were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands "wenua", villages "kainga", and all their property/treasures "taonga katoa".

In the English text of the Treaty, Māori yielded to the Crown an exclusive right to purchase their land.

Māori agreed to give the Crown the right to buy land from them should Māori wish to sell it.

The Treaty of Waitangi is in fact a joint of the Maori joining with the British Pakeha in declaring Independance for New Zealand.

[Aenlic]

New Zealand is keeping it's treaties? That's refreshing. The U.S. government violated every single treaty it signed with native tribes up until the 1930's.

[kiwitt]

What is the current ratio to be considered a Maori in NZ? At least 1/8 or more?

There is no real defined measure. All you need (according to Social statisticians) to do is have a "Maori" ancestor, to call yourself a "Maori". I think one of my ancestors was a "Prince" in the 1600-1700's, however, I can't call myself a "Royal". Or more recently "Jew", and I don't think I can call myself one.

This is my real problem with the current "Policy" towards Maori. These people get special treatment, because they have declared themselves to be Maori, not because they need it or because they are "Maori". There are many other races in NZ, including a growing number or Refugees that are more in need than these people.

[PanzerJaeger]

New Zealand is keeping it's treaties? That's refreshing. The U.S. government violated every single treaty it signed with native tribes up until the 1930's.

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

[Strike For The South]

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

only if youre in indian

[Redleg]

It doesnt seem to have turned out so badly for the US.

Try stepping foot on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico - or even some others that I know of.

The tribes are doing better then in the past - but they have a long way to go both in thier own internal managment of their people and lands, getting the Federal Government to honor the current treaties to the full extent of what was negotated many years ago.

[PanzerJaeger]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain.

[Productivity]

Throughout history civilizations have had to be brought into the present - sometimes kicking and screaming. If it wasnt the US government, it would have been another. At least America didnt treat them like Spain.

So that makes a wrong ok then? That someone else would have done something worse?

[Aenlic]

Well, I'll give you that one, PJ. The U.S. government didn't cut one foot off like Spainish and Portuguese did so that the "heathens" in South America couldn't run away.

And we didn't steal quite as much wealth from them as the Spanish did; although, the BIA is certainly making a good attempt at it.

[Papewaio]

Does the civil rights movement in the USA count as one of these acts of dragging a country in modern life?

I do think in some cases people are confusing technology and civilisation.

Germany needed a few stiff kicks to the nuts and head after the Nazis got to power. It was technological advanced, but it was certainly a distasteful form of civilisation.

[Azi Tohak]

I do not owe anyone anything on the basis of what color they are. I do not care what happened to their ancestors a hundred and fifty years ago. Or two hundred, or a thousand. Why do I care what happened to person X ancestor, 7 times removed?

If you take something from someone else by force, one might be forgiven for thinking they have some right to restitution. You mentioned the example of Jews and Germans - most people accept that returning expropriated property or making equivalent recompense to Jews surviving Nazi Germany would be wholly legitimate whether or not those surviving Jews actually needed it.

I have never taken anything from anyone by force. Okay... so that cookie from my sister 10 years ago is an exception... But mommy! She stuck her tounge out at me!

Sure, slavery is evil, though our modern, Western eyes. But going around trying to make amends for every instance of slavery in the world (to make it fair, why should only blacks get money they didn't earn afterall?) is insane.

I am no more guilty of slavery than I am of murder, rape, pillage, carousing than any other blue-eyed, blonde person.

So no, you are not racist. Calling you a racist is an attempt to use the strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?) in the English (or American) language to smear you and get a point across.

Azi

[Productivity]

strongest word (how many other words can destory a man?)

I would say peadophile is a worse word - if it gets out that you are a suspected paedophile then you can kiss your life good by.

[Aenlic]

And just to get back on topic.. mostly... I think the Maori people deserve whatever they can get from the government. But that's only because I really know very little about the entire situation. But since Once Were Warriors is one of my top 20 favorite movies, I'm going to side with the Maori, just because.

[PanzerJaeger]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.

We see this from the animal kingdom to the Roman Empire to the British Empire. Even today there are those who say American culture is "destroying native habits". Is that bad? No. Is that good? No. Its simply the way things work on this planet.

Consider the alternatives. Europeans would still all be living in Europe and the rest of the world would be in several different stages of development. How long would that last? How long could even the most enlightened Europeans hold back the inevitable human desire for cultural advancement? How long could an ever-expanding European population be expected to live in squalor while vast lands with relatively tiny populations lay just beyond the horizon? It simply ignores basic human nature.

Dominant cultures, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will progress. It’s unstoppable. The real question, which pertains to the original post is: Is that such a bad thing? Are the natives of today who are asking for compensation for things that occurred hundreds of years ago really that worse off than their ancestors, or have they benefited from the culture that surpassed that of their ancestors?

[Productivity]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

[Papewaio]

However there was a treaty signed so surely that puts them under the same law...

[Roark]

Heh...

Let's examine some well-known historical massacres, and we can try to figure out if they were "legal" or not...

[Productivity]

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

I am fully aware that macro and micro are different things, however you will find that most macro economic theory is derived at least in part from microeconomic theory. In fact, I have a macroeconomics test in two days, and the page I am open at now has a diagram on it, showing utility curves! Utility curves! One of the most microeconomic tools there is. They look at individual conusmers - yet here they are in a high level macroeconomics book.

So what does this say to me? It says to me that you are just chucking economics in for the sake of it. So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not? What are natural laws? Are natural laws simply might is right?

[PanzerJaeger]

So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not?

That’s subjective and up to you to decide on your own based on your own moral code.

I am trying to point out to you that cultural progression has never and will never respect the boundaries of a substandard culture for any length of time. It is not a matter of whether this is good or bad, as it is simply a natural occurrence.

And example..

A Nike factory is built in Africa. Are the corporate execs making a conscious decision to ruin the native culture of the area, or are they thinking about the best way to run their company? Now the Africans start to wear Nike clothes they are given at the factory instead of the traditional dress and now they are forced to work in the factory to keep up economic status with all the others. In that tiny microcosm, a culture was lost. There was no malice toward the Africans by the Nike corporation, they simply didn’t have a society strong enough to resist the benefits of working at the factory and the negatives of not working at the factory. Its simple progression.

This is what happened on a much larger scale all around the world. Native cultures simply were not able to compete with that of Europe. Was it wrong to break treaties and such, of course, but im talking about the much larger culture wars that were fought all over the world, and have been since the mankind has existed. The broken treaties and even the genocides were simply results of two cultures competing.

In an atmosphere where cultures have been allowed to grow so separately, the results when they meet are often violent. Today, in a much more globalized world, cultural progression is much more subtle, but very much the same.

It really does not matter if specific treaties, laws, or morals were respected or ignored; the native cultures and way of life could not compete and ceased to exist. This is a natural occurrence.

That is why I am against all of this talk of reparations and the guilt trip modern day "natives" try and push. They are essentially advocating the end of cultural progression, which has been nothing but a positive for the human race as a whole. To bring economics into it again, the world operates on a form of "cultural capitalism". Those cultures which are strong relative to the others survive and grow while those that cannot compete on any measure of standards fail. There is no reason to compensate the relatives of a failed people.

I don’t know about the natives around your part of the world, but over here they never even came up with the wheel. They were destined for the cultural trash heap. I say - get over it. Its been centuries..

[Roark]

What are your thoughts on atrocities that occurred in the 20th century, PJ? Mass alcoholism, disease, kidnapping, rape and mass poverty as a result of European interaction etc...

I mention these things because these are the specifics of the situation with the Australian Aborigine, and the consequences are widespread to this day.

I agree with you that, at some point in history, reparation would become ridiculous (imagine the mess in Europe, haha...), but at what point would you draw the line?

[Roark]

"Get over it"?

[doc_bean]

I fail to see the demise of the American natives or the natives of any other country as a bad/good thing. A culture that is several thousand years behind the civilization curve must modernize or face extinction, that’s just nature.

You're confusing things here. That the Native American culture is disappearing because of the strong influence of the USA is quite normal, and while maybe not the best thing ever, isn't something that should be compensated.

That problem however is that the US breaks its treaties with he Natives. Imaging buying a piece of land only to have it taken away a couple of years later because the government has found a better use for it. Everyone got very upset about the SC verdict in the New London case, but that is what has been happening to the Natives for generations (actually they got it even worse).

If you feel the US has the right to break the treaties just because it wants to, than there is little I can say to convince you other<wise I guess. But then I feel you reject the basic idea of law, and the very foundation of what we call civilization. For someone who doesn't like the theory of evolution much (iirc) you certainly seem to think about humans as if they were merely animals.