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.

[Franconicus]

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.

Of course! Your grandma has to pay money to your grandpa!