A couple of weeks ago, the New Zealand media reported on a report by the World Health Organisation (actually a report to the WHO, or rather to the Commission on the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health, which will in turn report to them) showing that Australia was worst in the world for indigenous health. Unmentioned was the fact that the report (offline, but I've acquired a copy) also included material on indigenous health in New Zealand, and that while it is better than Australia, it is still nothing to be proud of. Here's the summary:
Compared with our non-Maori peers, Maori can expect shorter life expectancy (even when adjusted for low income), fewer disability-free years, more preventable illness, a poorer prognosis for cancer when it is diagnosed and poorer access to health services. This situation has existed for some considerable time.
And to put some hard numbers on that: Maori live on average 8 years less than Pakeha, die twice as often from infectious disease (22.8 per 100,000 vs 11.4 per 100,000 for Pakeha), are twice as likely to suffer from Tuberculosis or Meningococcal disease, 2.5 times as like to suffer from Hepatitis B, and ten times as likely to suffer from Rheumatic Fever. Much of this is due to socioeconomic factors. But as mentioned above, some of it is not, and is instead the result of colonisation, disposession and systematic discrimination (that finding of "poorer access to health services" is likely to play a significant role). That we continue to tolerate this, without moving immediately and forcefully to rectify it is an indictement on our society and a failure of our dream of equality. After all, how can you claim that there is even equality of opportunity when those of one race, on average, are condemned to significantly shorter lives than others?
Unlike Australia, New Zealand is at least moving in the right direction. But we have a hell of a lot to do to close those gaps before we can look at ourselves in the mirror.
46 comments:
While we're at it, let's unilaterally develop a pill that cures the effects of alcoholism, obesity, drug abuse and smoking, and pop the pills to Maori. That'll do the trick.
Come on, I/S. You can do better analysis than this. The reason Maori have poor health outcomes is because they're overrepresented in crime statistics, are heavily dependent on welfare, subject to domestic and sexual violence, are poorly educated, and drink and smoke too much, engage in substance abuse, and eat too much of the wrong food.
They have the same access to public services as non-Maori, and the same opportunities for success as non-Maori. They are not genetically more pre-disposed to poor health than non-Maori.
Except for one thing. A whole generation of liberal pinkos have told Maori what a rough deal they've had over the last 167 years, and how everybody else owes them a living for supposed injustices of the past. The grievance mentality hasn't helped Maori one bit. It has simply created an excuse for failure.
Posted by Insolent Prick : 5/08/2007 09:52:00 AM
insolent_prick says - 'They have the same access to public services as non-Maori.'
The report says that Maori have 'poorer access to health services'.
I am confused - am i to believe insolent_prick or the World Health Organisation?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 11:16:00 AM
Insolent Prick, I think you are trying to conflate outcomes with causes. Saying that Maori suffer a range of negative outcomes that are all known to be linked together doesn't explain *why* Maori are more likely to explerience those things than other people. Everything you've linked is tied in with low SES as well as race and probably some other things. But the report explicitly tried to correct for SES, and still found relative disadvantage.
One possible explanation is that Maori have been treated as special in NZ for quite some time now, as you point out. Initally "special" meant "kill them all" and so on, then for a while it meant "fewer effective rights" and these days hopefully it means "how can we make it up to you".
Unless you're resolutely faith-based, I'm sure you accept that how people are as adults is affected by their parents, and how their parents live. So it's at least possible that someone whose parents were negatively affected by growing up in a home shattered by disposession could be less well off in some ways than someone who grew up in a different home.
So, that's my suggestion as to why Maori have worse health outcomes.
What's yours?
Posted by Moz : 5/08/2007 11:29:00 AM
That's right, prick, blame it all on the liberals. Has it ever occurred to you that wingnuts like yourself are actually the fundamental cause of Maori health issues ?
First up, I don't dispute your analysis of the *direct* auses of Maori health issues. The real question is, how did Maori go from being a jubilant, achievement-oriented, business and technologically savvy cultural group into being one with the kind of health and economic issues we have today ?
The typically racist wingnut approach is to blame the victims and say they obviously chose it for themselves. You might believe this racist bullshit, but I don't. Entire communities DO NOT choose second class citizenship. Instead, it is forced upon them by outsiders who consider that one community (in this case Maori) are abnormal and must be marginalised.
The spire on One Tree Hill is a testament to the "dying Maori race" and seeks to "smooth the pillow". That's the attitude generations of Maori have had to endure.
And that is the *fundamental* cause of the kind of dysfunction that is endemic in the list of *direct* causes you pointed out.
Suffice to say that many of us Maori are know what needs to be done. We're here, we're motivated and we are going to consign your racist rhetoric to the dustbin of history.
Posted by Mikaere Curtis : 5/08/2007 11:30:00 AM
What is the position of indigeonous cultures when nations celebrate their traditions, symbols, art etc. as part of a national identity while the actual people of said culture are treated as if they are best ignored?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 11:47:00 AM
“The real question is, how did Maori go from being a jubilant, achievement-oriented, business and technologically savvy cultural group into being one with the kind of health and economic issues we have today?”
And your answer appears to be “it’s everyone else’s fault particularly those bloody colonialists”.
You need to face a few facts. Maori are not unique in their problems and those problems are not unique to colonialism. Fact is, sometimes cultures thrive and sometimes they decline as the world passes them by, and the reasons may be varied. Hell, if it can happen to the Greeks and Babylonians why not to Maori? New Zealand was one of the richest countries in the world and over achieved in many areas of health and education in the same way you claim Maori did, we are now slipping back. Is there anyone we can blame? The yanks, the japs, the Aussies or the Chinese? Or should we look inward?
You say Maori were jubilant, achievement-oriented, business and technologically savvy. Well were they? Are they any less jubilant today? Seems a rather naïve view of history to me, along the lines of those who claim Maori never beat their children before damned whitey came along but conveniently ignores their enslavement of other people’s children. Perhaps they were successful in the initial stages of European contact, but when exposed to greater competition they literally did not have the tools to cope. They were not a technologically based society and as a taker of technology without a fundamental grasp of the underlying concepts, their ability to exploit those technologies was likely limited. Does that make it someone’s fault? Perhaps under your model New Zealand should have been a proto North Korea, shut off from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
And as for this “shattered by dispossession” crap. That is not a reason or an excuse. Jews have been dispossessed for quite a long time but they seem to have done alright all things considered. If you want to wallow in your “dispossession” then fine, but that is a dead end street. My parents had no land and no money and no roots when they came here. They have done alright. They were not the first and will not be the last to overcome adversity.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 12:36:00 PM
Duncan Bayne asks:
"Are you arguing that pakeha should be held responsible for poor life choices, but Maori shouldn't?"
I ask him:
"Did you actually read the comment?". Because no-one, anywhere, argued that "pakeha should be held responsible for poor life choices, but Maori shouldn't". You might think thats the logical next step from the comment that was presented, but you're wrong. It's also not incumbent on sensible people to answer irrelevant questions, so don't expect anyone to take you seriously. That is, "PISS OFF".
Mikaere, I enjoyed reading your post. In a basic sense, we do all "choose" our actions, and a higher proportion of Maori "choose" to drink heavily, smoke, commit crime etc. That seems to be where racist wingnuts like to stop the debate. They "reason" that because a person has chosen (in the basic sense) their actions, that they are to blame for the consequences. They aren't interested in exploring WHY those choices were made, and why choices leading to poor outcomes are more consistently made by Maori than non-Maori.
The explanations we have, roughly, are:
(a) colonisation, dispossession, and systematic discrimination
(b) a grievance mentality of a whole generation of liberal pinkos, who have told Maori that everybody else owes them a living
Can I pose a challenge to the racist wingnuts? Just for a moment, get your heads out of your arses, and accept that reasonable people disagree with your opinions that (b) is the sole cause of Maori disadvantage. And give up the bullshit that says "I did alright and my parents did alright because we did our best and worked hard with what we had. Brown-skinned guy didn't do alright so he can't have worked hard enough or perhaps he prefers the disadvantaged state he lives in".
Its so bloody ego-centric, and I'd suggest the rhetoric and beliefs of a few of you are no different from the stylised example in the quotes.
Anyway, the challenge: Please entertain the possibility, just for a moment maybe, that you and the brown-skinned guy fundamentally want and are trying to get the same things for yourselves in life. Give just a little credence to the idea that there may have been factors external to brown-skinned guy that contributed to his disadvantage, and that because he in no way 'deserved' to be born into facing those factors, and that you may be under a moral obligation to help him.
Not prepared to do even that? Then there is no useful direction that a debate over disadvantage can go. Instead, you can live your life in the knowledge that the rest of us think you a bunch of racist ignorant f****n pricks, and despise you totally. I guess your egocentricity will dull the pain of that, too...
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 02:03:00 PM
In a basic sense, we do all "choose" our actions, and a higher proportion of Maori "choose" to drink heavily, smoke, commit crime etc. That seems to be where racist wingnuts like to stop the debate. They "reason" that because a person has chosen (in the basic sense) their actions, that they are to blame for the consequences. They aren't interested in exploring WHY those choices were made, and why choices leading to poor outcomes are more consistently made by Maori than non-Maori.
So, you are asking people to judge the choices made by Maori differently to the choices made by pakeha ... which is exactly the point I was trying to clarify with my questions.
The fact that you chose to answer me with "PISS OFF" doesn't speak volumes as to your ability to support your argument with reason.
... and that you may be under a moral obligation to help him.
Ah, so not only are Maori not to blame for their bad choices, non-Maori are obliged to relieve them from the consequences of those bad choices?
What a con.
Why not judge people as individuals, rather than as members of a group? Why not look at the circumstances of an individuals suffering, and ask whether he brought it upon himself - not what the colour of his skin is?
Your claim that one racial group is morally obliged to help another is founded in the ugliest type of collectivism: racism.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 03:22:00 PM
duncan your "universalism" would have purchase as an argument if it had any semblence to reality.
maori are and have been *actively* discriminated in this very countrey for generations.
your line that "they're responsible for their own choices" only has meaning if the choices they make are what they actually get.
as an example. often a maori would like to live in a nice house close to a good school. but landlords get the say in that choice, and maori often lose out. and, this isn't my opinion, it's documented.
this is what they call "blaming the victim".
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 05:06:00 PM
Pakeha
One of the problems with your post is you assume that the people who disagree with you have automatically leapt to that position without any consideration of yours. Have you ever considered that those who don’t accept it might have at some stage and discarded it, in frustration that it is not adequately explaining the disparities? After all you are espousing a position that has been around for probably 30 years and on which many interventions have been based.
There was one recently that said that all the resources poured into education for Maori on building esteem and doing it from a Maori centred view had achieved nothing in terms of improved outcomes. So perhaps there is a bit more to it. Education/wealth is an obvious one that appears colourblind and very much dependent on your family rather than on an individual. I accept it is not all personal choice but you seem to be unwilling to accept that choice is very important in many such issues. My parents smoked, I don’t. That is purely down to my choice. I cannot accept the situation is any different for any other person in our community.
One simple counter to your view of the colonial/institutional racism/dispossession meme is mental health. You would expect that non lifestyle issues would be exacerbated due to colonial/institutional racism/dispossession yet in mental health statistics Maori are similar to non Maori and in self rating health surveys, they are again about the same. How can that be, or is the colonial influence so strong that they are effectively conditioned by their colonial environment.
Another is that PI populations in New Zealand overall suffer similarly to Maori in social outcomes – some better areas some worse. How can that be accounted for by your meme? What about other immigrants?
And of course what the study doesn’t show is that the improvements in morbidity outcomes are much higher for Maori than non Maori, its just coming from a lower base. So if your meme is accurate, rather than the gap rapidly closing you would expect it to be more entrenched. You could potentially make the argument that it closed most rapidly during the “assimilation” period of the 50s and 60s when Maori moved away from traditional lifestyles and slowed/reversed during the more recent “empowerment” period.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 05:06:00 PM
che,
I said:
Why not judge people as individuals, rather than as members of a group? Why not look at the circumstances of an individuals suffering, and ask whether he brought it upon himself - not what the colour of his skin is?
I'm not denying that racism was (sometimes still is) a problem in New Zealand. What I'm saying is that the cure for racist ills is most certainly not more racism - and in particular not laws that treat people differently on the basis of their race.
I'll grant you that racism on the part of landlords might make it harder for some Maori people to find good accomodation (haven't seen any studies about it, so I'll take your word for it). If that's the case, then those Maori so effected deserve support.
Personally, I think it'd be appropriate to 'name & shame' those landlords who discriminate on the basis of race. Maybe, those effected could form mutual societies to make rental properties available in those areas?
Nonetheless, that has nothing to do with other choices like smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, criminal activity, domestic violence, etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 06:33:00 PM
Duncan Bayne wrote: If I see a pakeha man who's chosen to live a life of crime, bludge off welfare, beat his wife, and abuse drugs, then I blame him & him alone for making those choices.
And if you see a trend that heavily correlates with a single measure - the fact that he is pakeha - then your conclusion is that it is a case of mass dysfunction with no external factors ?
Which is the typical wingnut issue. Can't see past the individualism that frames their interface with society.
Insider wrote: Perhaps they were successful in the initial stages of European contact, but when exposed to greater competition they literally did not have the tools to cope. They were not a technologically based society and as a taker of technology without a fundamental grasp of the underlying concepts, their ability to exploit those technologies was likely limited. Does that make it someone’s fault?
This shows your limited and tenuous grasp of history. Maori had no problem getting a handle on technology - take the musket wars as an example - but what was a limiting factor was resource dispossion on a grand scale - the work of a racist settler government.
Your argument also fails on base principles. How many present day Kiwis would know how to assemble a personal computer, let alone describe the design principles behind one ? Yet we are quite capable of using them to improve productivity. By your reasoning, we are heading for some kind if "limit" (and I'm not talking about Moore's Law).
Insider also said: My parents had no land and no money and no roots when they came here. They have done alright. They were not the first and will not be the last to overcome adversity.
This was one of the things I was alluding to with my question regarding a "how did Maori go from being a jubilant, achievement-oriented...". Triumph over adversity is fairly common in human experience, so why can immigrants do it whereas Maori seem not to be able to (on a community scale).
Cue wingnuts: "It's all individual choice.". How predictable.
The Feminist writings I have read make much of vertical and horizontal role models. Women have describe the value of having peer (horizontal) and more senior (vertical) role models.
What would happen if a community was systematically marginalised ? Where would the role models be? At the same level as everyone in the community, is where i.e. the demonstrated roles are non-pioneering, and are non-developing.
Without role models, I believe it is difficult to demonstrate developmental pathways. If you are from a community that is treated as abnormal, and without logical developmental pathways, I believe that your choices will be self-limited.
This is not an easy problem to solve. But whatever shape the solution takes, it will be in no way assisted by a wingnut chorus of "Your choice, your fault, suck on that". This is exactly the kind of message that reinforces negative outcomes.
If you want to be part of the problem, how about spreading this message: "Success is a series of positive choices - the more positive choices, the more successful you are." ?
Posted by Mikaere Curtis : 5/08/2007 08:39:00 PM
Gosh Anon such thoughtful argument, telling use of challenging data and command of language. I shall have a troubled sleep tonight pondering that gem.
Anything useful to add apart from shallow rhetoric and preconceived bigotry?
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 08:43:00 PM
That should have been "If you want to be part of the solution..."
Oh dear, how Freudian...
Posted by Mikaere Curtis : 5/08/2007 08:43:00 PM
Mikaere said...
This shows your limited and tenuous grasp of history. Maori had no problem getting a handle on technology - take the musket wars as an example - but what was a limiting factor was resource dispossion on a grand scale - the work of a racist settler government.
You misunderstood my made up on the spot theory which is entirely open to debate and demolition.
If you want to be Darwinian about it, I am contending that perhaps Maori could not compete beyond the short term in the modern world they were thrust into because while they could use the tools, they lacked the fundamental understanding of the underlying science and engineering required to develop the technology to fully understand, develop and exploit them. They were stone age. They did not know maths or metallurgy.
That’s not institutionalised racsim, that is luck of the draw. Just as those who could work bronze had it over neolithics, and those who could work iron had it over those who could work bronze. Today we put in place systems like welfare to try and moderate those darwinian advantages, and good thing too.
Yes they lost large parts of land often unfairly, and they also suffered massive depopulation. And it took time for them to recover. But they still possessed arms and legs and brains, and many tribes had knowledge and resources that could have been exploited. Why did that not happen?
It may have had a cultural element but I think it may have been a bit more basic than that and it revolves around a massive disparity in knowledge, perhaps exacerbated by resource loss. Again, that’s not institutionalised racism, that is luck of the draw.
It’s just a cod theory so feel free to dismiss vigorously, I just don’t know but I don’t think your argument holds when tested against facts.
Your argument also fails on base principles. How many present day Kiwis would know how to assemble a personal computer, let alone describe the design principles behind one ? Yet we are quite capable of using them to improve productivity. By your reasoning, we are heading for some kind if "limit" (and I'm not talking about Moore's Law).
Hang on, you have been talking about cultural groups and now when it suits you, you go down the individual route. Well some non Maori do know, and we can make use of those skills as a community, along with the programmers and engineers etc. Our society has the building blocks to substitute for most skills we currently import.
Insider also said: My parents had no land and no money and no roots when they came here. They have done alright. They were not the first and will not be the last to overcome adversity.
This was one of the things I was alluding to with my question regarding a "how did Maori go from being a jubilant, achievement-oriented...". Triumph over adversity is fairly common in human experience, so why can immigrants do it whereas Maori seem not to be able to (on a community scale).
But not all immigrants can (cf PI’s and other immigrants from low tech, low education environments) and more importantly not all Maori can’t, and so the issue is not strictly a Maori or racism issue, and correlation is not causation.
What would happen if a community was systematically marginalised ? Where would the role models be? At the same level as everyone in the community, is where i.e. the demonstrated roles are non-pioneering, and are non-developing.
Without role models, I believe it is difficult to demonstrate developmental pathways. If you are from a community that is treated as abnormal, and without logical developmental pathways, I believe that your choices will be self-limited.
You ignore the rapid progress the statistics show Maori experienced since the 50s.
You never heard of Ngata, of Pomare, of Nepia, the Maori Battalion, Te Heu Heu? To say there are no role models is just being condescending. From what I have read, it appears to me that Maori leaders were been given a lot of credence and respect by Pakeha society, particularly in the early-mid 20th century.
but we need to recognise they have gone from being massively behind to only a little bit. Was that racism in action? Were Maori systematically denied vaccines, milk in schools etc.Why not celebrate that achievement and call for more, not belabour a diminishing difference.
This is not an easy problem to solve. But whatever shape the solution takes, it will be in no way assisted by a wingnut chorus of "Your choice, your fault, suck on that". This is exactly the kind of message that reinforces negative outcomes.
That is not the be all and end all I accept, and I am not blaming people for their situation, but 160 years into the colonisation experiment, nor do I think you can continue blaming the actions of our ancestors for the broad outcomes of today. The converse of your view is that continually excusing underachievement by blaming outside forces is a recipe for success.
Today we even have Tariana Turia saying not all gang members are criminals….what planet is she from - which is just an abdication of her leadership responsibility and a continuation of the ‘it’s everyone else’s fault they are misunderstood’ theme she has demonstrated before when she should have been condemning not only the killers but the mothers and fathers who allow their 2 year olds to be in a gang house, let alone awake in the front room at 10pm at night. They shouldn’t be allowed to avoid responsibility because they were Maori.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 10:09:00 PM
I get it now! You are a troll.
Otherwise, you are the most extreme and rarest of fools because you expect to be taken seriously after making these two statements:
“You misunderstood my made up on the spot theory which is entirely open to debate and demolition.”
“It’s just a cod theory so feel free to dismiss vigorously, I just don’t know but I don’t think your argument holds when tested against facts.”
So you must be a troll right?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/08/2007 10:35:00 PM
Mikaere,
You fall into the classic trap of screaming "RACIST" whenever somebody stands up and tells Maori that their health, education, and living standards are primarily their responsibility. That isn't actually what I'm saying, by the way.
Many different cultures in New Zealand have suffered discrimination at various times in history. My Catholic forbears in Dunedin would have stones thrown at them as they walked to school. My Presbyterian grandfather in Dunedin was one of the kids throwing stones. My Welsh great-great grandfather came to New Zealand with nothing, and three generations of dirt-poor Welsh ancestors spent their lives down coal mines--short lives they were--just as they had in Wales beforehand.
I also have Maori heritage. What distinguishes my Maori family from my Welsh is that a generation of liberal, socialist, and almost universally white people have been telling Maori that their lot has been so much worse than everybody else's, and that as a consequence, the State owes them a living.
Well, I don't buy that. Colonisation happens. It can't be reversed. The effects were hardly all-bad on Maori: pre-colonisation, Maori were not a particularly advanced, peaceful, or cultured society. Maori are not a distinct, separate community without the opportunities of non-Maori.
What doesn't assist Maori is a welfare, health and education system that tells Maori that they don't have to achieve as much as non-Maori; that the reasons for their failure are historical colonisation and oppression that they cannot change, and that the state will support them if they fail. That is an utterly shameful cop-out.
By all means, fight racial discrimination, but it is a loaded and absurd claim that Maori do not have the same access to government services, when the plain fact is that they are privileged over non-Maori in the provision of those services. That privilege simply doesn't work, and those who choose to identify as Maori will be doomed to failure as long as they carry a backward-looking, self-depressant grievance mentality.
Posted by Insolent Prick : 5/09/2007 09:22:00 AM
Sorry didn’t read the rule that said uncertain hypotheses couldn’t be posted, discussed and tested here, and that it was only a zone for those fundamentalists possessing the arrogant certitude driven by an entrenched dogma that brooks no argument. I appreciate you making me aware of that.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 09:25:00 AM
Again...
insolent prick says 'the plain fact is that they are privileged over non-Maori in the provision of those [health] services.'
The World Health Organisation report says that Maori have 'poorer access to health services'.
It strikes me that your 'plain fact' is anything but.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 12:01:00 PM
Insider – I am quite intrigued by your ‘cod theory’. Though I am tempted to dismiss it vigorously, I do think that your ‘cod theory’ will hold when tested against facts, but I just don’t know.
lol!
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 12:25:00 PM
Well Anon, one of the problems with the conclusions of that report is that it seems to contradict some of the research.
According to the New Zealand health survey, Maori were just as likely as non Maori to have visited a GP, they are similar on self admission to hospitals, and they were almost exactly the same in terms of satisfaction levels with health treatment received. Those who couldn’t see GPs said it was mainly due to cost and not wanting to make a fuss, which was hardly to do with the impact of colonialism.
So if they are so marginalised and so alienated and so disadvantaged, how come Maori don’t seem to either feel that way or behave in a way that supports that thesis? How does their conclusion about poorer access conform with the above statistical research?
It seems the researchers may have wanted to frame their study in a preconceived racial/political framework, judging by some of the commentary to the report and seeing the general tenor of their previous work.
“The researchers said the Australian government needed to officially recognise that colonisation stripped Aboriginal people of their rights if Aboriginals were to be able to move forward.”
“It says the most change for the Aboriginal and Maori populations had come from the arrival of European settlers in the late 18th century. “It was contact with these people that affected and led to the decline to today’s levels of relative deprivation and health inequality.” WTF? Of course it did, there was no relativity before when there was isolation. Are they seriously saying outcomes are worse today than precolonisation or that there was no disparity before then?
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 04:31:00 PM
DB Why not judge people as individuals, rather than as members of a group? Why not look at the circumstances of an individuals suffering, and ask whether he brought it upon himself - not what the colour of his skin is?
You can argue quite coherently and logically that it is a problem which needs to be addressed at the individual level, by the individual, and I agree to a certain extent. It is dependant on a number of things including the current state of that society... it's economic productivity and wealth, the state of the labour market, the social mechanisms which oil the interaction of the society (ie the social cohesiveness) etc etc ad nauseum.
Personal choice is also restricted in terms of disposable income, or capital left to invest after taking care of the necessities like food, shelter etc, and it also manifests itself in terms of reinforcing class associated trappings...for example I'm not likely to get an executive job if I turn up in a K-mart suit with manky teeth because I couldn't afford decent clothing or dental care,no matter how educated I am. I'm also not likely to move in the same circles as wealthy people.
There are better jobs and opportunities available to Maori an other economically disadvantaged, but the energy and risk required is more than most poor people can manage.
It's not just a matter of personal choice. There are other restraints at work.The hand you are dealt does play a part.
Time to check your premises and think outside the box Duncan.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 05:14:00 PM
Ruth,
As I said,
Why not look at the circumstances of an individuals suffering, and ask whether he brought it upon himself - not what the colour of his skin is?
In short, if someone is being prevented from obtaining something - say a good job - by the colour of his skin, then that's something to rally against.
If you could make the case that someone is being racially discriminated against in health provision - and that's bloody unlikely considering they are the targetted recipients of extra tax-victims money - that's something to rally against.
But if it's a choice, say like smoking, drug abuse, domestic violence, poor diet, lack of exercise, criminal activity ... why on earth should a person making a choice to engage in such activity be judged differently because he happens to be a member of a particular race?
I'm not saying that there is no racism in NZ. What I'm saying is that it is vitally important - both in terms of justice and policy planning - to distinguish between things that are the effect of racist, and those that are the effect of bad choices on the part of individuals.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 06:34:00 PM
Duncan,
This report is prima facie evidence that the cause is racism. There is a significant difference between one group and everyone else, the only difference being race.
So I wonder, are you trying to claim that health outcomes are random and Maori just happened to come up more often in this study? What's your alternative explantion that doesn't have race at its core?
Posted by Moz : 5/09/2007 07:11:00 PM
Insider
“Those who couldn’t see GPs said it was mainly due to cost and not wanting to make a fuss, which was hardly to do with the impact of colonialism.”
It could be argued that this does have something to do with the impact of colonialism…
Can Maori being less well-off financially be traced back to colonialism? Is this what treaty claims are all about?
“So if they are so marginalised and so alienated and so disadvantaged, how come Maori don’t seem to either feel that way or behave in a way that supports that thesis?”
When people would prefer ‘not making a fuss’ to seeking good health care - this is a symptom of alienation, marginalisation etc. This possibly has something to do with the impact of colonialism, possibly not. Does it matter? Would you prefer it if Maori did not get the same access to health care as other races?
“Are they seriously saying outcomes are worse today than precolonisation or that there was no disparity before then?”
Well, are they?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 07:33:00 PM
Ruth
You are dead right that people do suffer from the cards life deals them. That is why education should be free even to university level IMO, as should health because they are the great levellers. PS where’d your blog go?
Anon
"It could be argued that this does have something to do with the impact of colonialism…Can Maori being less well-off financially be traced back to colonialism? Is this what treaty claims are all about?"
iT Could be argued but I wouldn't agree. There is no denying income impacts health outcomes. But incomes tend to be individual rather than collective and treaty claims are about collectives.
One of the issues for Maori has been that they often have had assets but they are communal assets and these have not been able to be leveraged because collective land is hard to use as a security. It’s not a racism or colonial issue, it is squarely a Maori cultural one. Plenty of collectives have been able to level\rage community strengths for specific tasks.
"When people would prefer ‘not making a fuss’ to seeking good health care - this is a symptom of alienation, marginalisation etc. This possibly has something to do with the impact of colonialism, possibly not. Does it matter?"
Actually the numbers were very similar in both categories for Maori and non Maori. I should have stated that. So no it doesn't matter except to demonstrate a lack of discrimination.
"Would you prefer it if Maori did not get the same access to health care as other races?"
No-one’s suggesting that. It’s a false premise. Have you stopped beating your wife?
“Are they seriously saying outcomes are worse today than precolonisation or that there was no disparity before then?”
Well, are they?"
It seems to be what the quote is implying. What’s your view?
Moz
Disparity of outcome does not imply racism nor sexism nor any other ism. Men are significantly less likely to be seen by GPs and die younger than women. Does that imply there is institutional sexism in the health system? Only the mens rights nutter claim that. Or is it that we are more stoic in our attitudes to self health, have fewer working parts and so fewer ‘plumbing’ issues, and tend to have riskier lifestyles.
Racism seems an overly simplistic term that is too easy to chuck around to suit a political agenda
Posted by Anonymous : 5/09/2007 09:38:00 PM
> There is a significant difference
> between one group and everyone
> else, the only difference being
> race.
Okay - how do you define 'race'? What specifically makes one person a pakeha, and another a Maori?
Posted by Duncan Bayne : 5/09/2007 11:27:00 PM
What is the Australian approach to improving the situation for the Aboriginal people? Is it somewhere along the lines of ‘do nothing’? In that case how has ‘do nothing’ worked for the Aboriginal people?
New Zealand’s fraternity of liberal pinkos seem to have done a better job than Australia in improving the situation for indigenous peoples as the OP points out.
Are the likes of ‘insolent prick’ suggesting that we should learn from Ausfailia and do nothing about these problems so that Maori will instead be forced to help themselves?
Insider – “There is no denying income impacts health outcomes.”
There you go. I don’t know the statistics but would it be true to say that Maori generally have lower incomes than other races?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 10:14:00 AM
Insider - please ignore the abuse and keep talking.. I find your argument original and a refreshing change from the usual descent into cliche on this topic. cheers.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 11:01:00 AM
Anon
There is no argument that Maori incomes are generally lower, though I think they are rising faster than other groups. And that inequality is not necessarily an inequity.
If you are poor you are more likely to have a shorter life span. There is not necessarily a direct causal relationship but the result of a series of cascading decisions and events that compound an effect. Here’s a top of mind example.
Maori are more prone to diabetes. That is genetic, it’s a no fault issue. If you have diabetes you are less likely to live longer, you are going to be sicker and so may have issues with job retention or promotion, which will affect your family because income impacts your housing quality, your kids chances at education, and their health. Add on top of that that Maori are more likely to smoke and their culture seems more tolerant of it as a result, which makes them and their environments less healthy. Smokers are more likely to be poorer and less educated. Which means they are likely to be less healthy and have poorer diets, which can make diabetes worse, which can make them obese and sick, which can limit their lifespan and earning capacity etc etc.
Now which ones of these are due to racism or colonialism in a way unique to Maori? Which one can you isolate as causal? We are dealing with people and people are chaotic.
There is a temptation to try and find a driver that is unique and will capture all the issues, eg colonialism or racism. Nearly all outcomes of all things in modern New Zealand can be tied back to colonialism if you want to as New Zealand was a colony, but I’m not sure if it is that useful in identifying a ‘cure’.
Models are constructed to explain a social situation or a behaviour, but in my experience they are often inductive rather than deductive and so the issue is defined in its maker’s image to fit the conclusion, they are rarely comprehensive. I mean, why do the Business Roundtable submissions on the economy nearly always say the same thing? The explanation is made to fit the conclusions.
One of my big gripes though, going way back up, is the reference to racism. Racism, to me, is deliberate denigration and discrimination with intent to negatively impact someone else. Unfortunately the term has been conflated to something called Institutional racism. What this is implies is that because a system delivers disparate results, that is akin to the kind of attitude that results in crosses being burnt and separate beaches. I don’t accept that is fair, in fact it is offensive.
It’s the wrong word in the wrong application and I do not believe any New Zealand government in living memory has intentionally gone out of its way to make life harder for Maori.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 05:05:00 PM
insider... in 1952 all maori houses on bastion point were burnt down so as to not offend the royal visitors.
the maori affairs amendment act was passed in 1967. one of it's main purposes was to alienate as much "unproductive" maori land as possible.
these are two acts, one by local, the other by central government, that made life harder for maori (especially the last one).
you might notice that they're both within the living lifetime of most of the current parliamentary leaders.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 08:20:00 PM
Che
Excuse my ignorance, but I might point out that we are talking about Maori as a whole.
Bastion point would not have affected Maori outside that group, and having land appropriated by govt is not new fo Maori or non Maori. Ask the people in Paremata how much land they have lost.
I don't know about the 677 act, but I do know that at that time a lot of land was being converted to farm for Maori, and there was concern about the lack of development of those farms and them reverting.it seems to have been thought that converting it to freehold would make them easier to manage.
I don't doubt the outcome was what you say but what was the intent?
You could easily debate that the approach of say the Northland council on rates in not collecting them on Maori land discriminates against non Maori. The reason they don;t collect is due to collective ownership, which makes it very hard to pinpoint who should pay, and central govt regulations that do not empower councils to act to alienate land. You try not paying your rates and see what happens.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 09:35:00 PM
Insider -
“Racism, to me, is deliberate denigration and discrimination with intent to negatively impact someone else.”
If you took the words ‘deliberate’ and ‘with intent’ out of that sentence, you would have a more accurate definition of racism. The United Nations uses this definition of racial discrimination:
“...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
I would point out the words: ‘which has the purpose or effect’… So racism occurs whether your action is deliberate (‘has the purpose’) or not (‘has the effect’).
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 10:32:00 PM
insider, bastion point fundamentally effected the psyche of maori. the 1967 act was directly responsible for the great and first hikoi of dame whina cooper.
what you're attempting to do is to undermine maori cultural rights by asserting that "maori difference" somehow undermines "mainstream rights".
it is a spurious argument that has been tried in many forms. it is especially spurious if one doesn't actually know anything about new zealand history, and is extrapolating from a few newspaper clippings.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/10/2007 10:40:00 PM
"what you're attempting to do is to undermine maori cultural rights by asserting that "maori difference" somehow undermines "mainstream rights".
Che - maybe I'm being a bit thick, but I don't understand - would you explain this comment?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 09:20:00 AM
"maori difference" somehow undermines "mainstream rights"
To some people "not racist" means "everyone must be treated exactly the same". To those people, anything that recognises Maori as different in any way is therefore racism. Interestingly, these people often support strong property rights, but only if those rights are not historical - recognising that Maori owned land before the white man arrived is not on, because that would mean treating Maori "differently".
The liberal pinko scum position, of recognising that some people are different because of their race, and that past racist wrongs require present racially-based recompense, is interesting to me in part because I would expect it to be the conservative or libertarian response, with the socialists opposed. But then, I naively expect conservatives to be conservationists rather than radicals so what would I know.
The "nonracist means everyone the same starting now" position often ends up where Insider is now, Insider is only unusual in explicitly saying "I don't know what I'm talking about but I know what I mean".
Posted by Moz : 5/11/2007 09:50:00 AM
Actually Che the comment came from Te Ara (?) where it discusses the rationale behind the process of alienation, which I read as originally to empower Maori because they weren’t able to successfully exploit their land and improve economic outcomes due to communal ownership which was creating large numbers of owners over small land parcels that were considered uneconomic.
The 67 act was the next stage in that process started in the 1953 act. It was changed to make it far more difficult for land to be converted in 1974, which I believe was before the land march. I’ve seen the act described as naïve, which in context I interpret to mean it did not think through the consequences rather than being in evil in intent.
I accept your greater knowledge re the impact of Bastion point, but I said that it was not aimed at Maoridom as a whole. It was another example of the abuse of the public works act. There are many people continuing to be aggrieved by that act of all cultures.
PS - I don’t recall trying to undermine anyone’s ‘cultural rights’ – I neither have the power nor the intent. Stop making personal offensive assumptions.
Anon
Frankly the UN definition is a political one. The dictionary says racism is prejudice driven by hatred, feelings of superiority to another race.
Your UN example is also primarily referring to the enjoyment “on an equal footing… of human rights and fundamental freedoms…” –it’s talking about rights of access not equality of outcomes. Careful where you go there, otherwise we descend into “one law for all” debates and that is just so 2005.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 09:54:00 AM
So your contention would be that discrimination against another person because of their race is ok as long as it is not deliberate or intentional?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 11:02:00 AM
Moz
As you’ve specifically made reference to me, I think you have completely mischaracterised my comments. The only point I have said that everyone should be treated exactly the same is re free education and health. Please provide reference or stop making things up.
Anon
I can’t see how you could begin to draw that conclusion. It’s an illogical proposition anyway. You can’t unintentially discriminate on race. You first have to define a race, you then have to make a decision with race as the defining factor.
Are you implying that a decision that affects a group of Maori is de facto always racial discrimination? The logic of that being: this decision affects you, you are Maori, therefore this decision was made on the basis of you being Maori. Some things may work that way eg the establishment of special health schemes aimed at Maori, but it doesn’t follow that all decisions that affect Maori individually or in distinct groups follow the same logic.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 12:39:00 PM
Insider, when you said "I do not believe any New Zealand government in living memory has intentionally gone out of its way to make life harder for Maori." you're either claiming ignorance or stating that you're not amenable to facts. Either way, it's not a great way to carry your point.
Posted by Moz : 5/11/2007 01:29:00 PM
Moz
It would nice if you gave me some facts so I could decide whether I was amenable to them. Please give me an example of where a post war New Zealand govt has made a law solely on the rationale that they really just want to make life even tougher for Maori, and how the example fits the question.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 02:01:00 PM
Insider -
"You can’t unintentially discriminate on race."
This from a quick google search:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/intro.htm
Institutions can behave in ways that are overtly racist (i.e., specifically excluding people-of-color from services) or inherently racist (i.e., adopting policies that while not specifically directed at excluding people-of-color, nevertheless result in their exclusion).
Therefore, institutions can respond to people-of-color and whites differently. Institutional behavior can injure people-of-color; and, when it does, it is nonetheless racist in outcome if not in intent.
http://www.eraseracismny.org/html/whatis/what_is_institutional_racism.php
Institutional racism is a term that describes the way government and other public and private institutions systematically afford White people an array of social, political and economic advantages, simply because they are White, while marginalizing and putting at a disadvantage African Americans and many other people of color. White people often cannot see and do not question the sources and legitimacy of their privilege and power, whereas people of color experience daily its consequences. Even without conscious, personal racial animosity, these institutional structures, policies, and practices generate and maintain racial discrimination, segregation, and inequalities of opportunity that keep African Americans and other people of color apart from the mainstream of American economic and political life.
Institutional racism is a legacy of American slavery and White settlers' determination to systematically exclude Africans from every aspect of the newly formed democratic society. Institutional racism is still rampant today and remains embedded in every institution, school, and system in society despite efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans and other people of color.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 02:42:00 PM
Makes me glad not to be an American having to deal with these legacies of slavery.
Insider
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 03:26:00 PM
"Institutions can behave in ways that are overtly racist (i.e., specifically excluding people-of-color from services) or inherently racist (i.e., adopting policies that while not specifically directed at excluding people-of-color, nevertheless result in their exclusion)."
Whilst undoubtedly purely motivated, such broad-brush definitions are fundamentally useless when generating real-world policy. Eg, it is clearly impossible to create public policy which is 100% race (or gender) neutral, as all groups are not 'equal' in starting conditions.
Also, such definitions tends to be selectively applied. Eg young males are demonstrably failing in the current education system. Does this mean our education policy is sexist? Is it in any way useful to spend time arguing over the definition of sexism, or more productive to invest the energy in looking for specific ways in which it is failing kids and attempting to correct either the system/process, or to provide additional support to the failees?
There's a huge difference between being a historical denialist and being a moderate pragmatist.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/11/2007 09:54:00 PM
Why does policy have to be 100% race or gender neutral? Indeed, all groups are not equal in starting conditions so why not give those that are behind a push? Because this would disadvantage those that are ahead in some way? I suppose it is an ethical choice between altruism and egoism.
“young males are demonstrably failing in the current education system. Does this mean our education policy is sexist?”
Has male achievement in schools been linked to the lack of male teachers? If so, I would say that this would be more because of sexist attitudes in wider society toward males being employed as teachers than anything to do with the education system.
“Is it in any way useful to spend time arguing over the definition of sexism.”
Quite possibly – “There is nothing more practical than a good theory.”
"There's a huge difference between being a historical denialist and being a moderate pragmatist."
Is there such a huge difference? Could someone be both at the same time?
Posted by Anonymous : 5/12/2007 10:32:00 AM
> Why does policy have to be 100%
> race or gender neutral?
So that all citizens are equal before the law - so that they are judged on their own actions as individuals, not as part of a group.
Perhaps we could take an example of why racism is a bad idea: Maori are more likely, statistically speaking, to be criminals than non-Maori.
If you accept the fundamental racist premise - that an individual's race can & should influence how you deal with that individual - then you should by rights be suspicious of any Maori you meet, as he's more likely to be a criminal than a non-Maori.
Most New Zealanders would (correctly) regard that attitude as ludicrous. And yet, many are keen to apply racist principles to other areas - say, in demanding extra healthcare funding for Maori, because statistically, they're more likely to have health problems than non-Maori.
Posted by Anonymous : 5/14/2007 12:41:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).