Cloud_Strife
Deity
And if it started raining donuts i presume the economic system of every country would be disrupted,
see i can do it do ama
The Kiwi Concept?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
And if it started raining donuts i presume the economic system of every country would be disrupted,
see i can do it do ama
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I was trying to calculate for the terminal velocity of a donut because my immediate concern was a 25g piece of stale bread hitting me from 3km in the air, but I ran into trouble trying to account for the fact that it has a hole in it. As for economic effects, it would be contingent on whether or not the rain was something continual or if it's a one-off, as well as volume. Also, are they just plain cake donuts or is it a variety? I want a chocolate one with jimmies. Again, however, depends on the velocity/volume of d, d for donut.
Good artists copy, great artists steal. - Picasso
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
From the pictures I've seen, I do like to visit the ANZEC countries. Though I'd have to juggle with choosing to vacation in Osaka and Tokyo or New Zeland when I'm older
Nobody said you had to be. Cloud and I are talking about claims you have made.
I don't care that you're not familiar with the book I provided, it was literally the first Google hit for segregation in NZ. There are others. Plenty of others. There's enough for me to say "this was a thing" in response to you claiming it didn't exist.
Which ties into the Kiwi concept, and indeed the thread. Because it means race did matter, which means (given how recent a lot of this is compared to the historical record) it still does. Stuff might be better now, but the concept of a Wiki will be tied up with the Maori and how they were treated by colonisers who came to NZ.
Nobody's "crapping" on anything. If you want to make claims like "race doesn't matter" or "we had no segregration", it's perfectly fair for folks to respond to these claims. It's not our fault you have an idealistic (and incorrect) view of the past. If I made a thread about "the British concept" and said "colonisation wasn't a thing", people would laugh at me. You wouldn't see me playing the victim on that
Nobody said NZ is perfect. Nobody demanded NZ be perfect. Both of these things are true, so if you want to recognise the first, also recognise the second instead of going off about a position nobody holds.
Zardnaar
Deity
Nobody said you had to be. Cloud and I are talking about claims you have made.
I don't care that you're not familiar with the book I provided, it was literally the first Google hit for segregation in NZ. There are others. Plenty of others. There's enough for me to say "this was a thing" in response to you claiming it didn't exist.
Which ties into the Kiwi concept, and indeed the thread. Because it means race did matter, which means (given how recent a lot of this is compared to the historical record) it still does. Stuff might be better now, but the concept of a Wiki will be tied up with the Maori and how they were treated by colonisers who came to NZ.
Nobody's "crapping" on anything. If you want to make claims like "race doesn't matter" or "we had no segregration", it's perfectly fair for folks to respond to these claims. It's not our fault you have an idealistic (and incorrect) view of the past. If I made a thread about "the British concept" and said "colonisation wasn't a thing", people would laugh at me. You wouldn't see me playing the victim on that
Nobody said NZ is perfect. Nobody demanded NZ be perfect. Both of these things are true, so if you want to recognise the first, also recognise the second instead of going off about a position nobody holds.
A few things mentioned in that book are racist not segregation.
So the author afaik may be exaggerating what happened or using hyperbolic language.
Or you could be downplaying it, or simply not understanding what segregation is and how it manifests (I'd imagine it relates pretty closely to racism). I'm not judging you, but I don't consider you an authority on the topic, much like I don't consider me an authority on the topic. I just did enough searching to say "this is definitely looks like a thing". You saying "well the book is wrong" is, uh, your opinion, but it's not exactly a convincing one.
Zardnaar
Deity
If they all came at once probably not. Thrir values would replace ours.
Zardnaar
Deity
Pukekohe is a town idk how big it was back then.
Also it's irrelevant to the thread. Even if the books accurate it's not US style seggration which was systematic and it wasn't very widespread.
Old fashioned racism was definitely a thing back then but that was the default back then. Comparatively NZ was better than the other anglosphere countries I would argue.
I'm not saying the book is completely wrong but it might be using language used overseas and applying it here.
A Maori politician here apologized after using the word holocaust in reference to something. Didn't go down well with Jewish groups
So the context of the book is what I'm getting at. I haven't read it or know much about it. I vaguely remember it came out a few years ago.
Do you think that matters? No country is perfect, but that doesn't mean we go "oh well, somebody else is worse, so it isn't a problem". You can say NZ was better than other countries, so what? This is a genuine question.
The book is just one example. I'm sure I could source NZ authors given enough time. But then again, so could you. Because this came down to you claiming segregation didn't exist. I know folks that swear blind England didn't colonise half the world. Does their sincerity make them right?
You opened up a discussion, I discussed. I'm not saying "you have to believe me", but the back-and-forth is what discussion is. And it's all relevant to what a Kiwi is.
Zardnaar
Deity
1. It's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
2. I said NZ not perfect.
3. Context matters.
4. Anything bad that happens overseas probably happens here.
The big difference is scale frequency and government response here.
Eg we gave MAGA types they get 2-4% in elections and don't get into government.
School shootings. We had one in 1930's.
USA style mass shootings. We had one 1990 and 2019.
So even if the books accurate it's one reactionary town 100 odd years ago vs US segregation. At the same time frame USA was lynching blacks, Australia was massacred Aborigines, and Canada was doing their own things.
The Waitangi tribunal hears claims, the government apologizes and pays compensation (not really enough tbf). Also human rights commission.
And that's what makes NZ a bit different IMHO. Scale, frequency, government response.
No it isn't.
Nobody said it had to be.
What context?
Including segregation. Which means race does matter to the "Kiwi concept".
Let's say you're right, and the numbers are a lot less.
The people are a lot less, Zardnaar. NZ is a lot smaller, and a lot less population. This even translates to significantly lower population density, if my Googling is accurate (source: World Bank, apparently).
It's not a defense to say "there was less of it". The point is it existed, and therefore it had an impact. If it had an impact, then therefore it is relevant, nomatter how many times you say it isn't. You don't get to say something isn't relevant to the thread just because you think people aren't right. It's a discussion. Everyone gets an opinion.
People in settler colonies have a bad habit of thinking they're the ones who uniquely discovered non-bloodline forms of citizenship and civic nationalism, it's honestly kinda weird. Don't get me wrong, they're strictly better at citizenship/nationality laws and experiencing mass migration without going completely insane than most other countries, but it's not exactly a unique or mystical process and not one has fully reckoned with the stain of colonialism.
Last edited:
The Chinese will laugh in your face.
You'll be accepted - but you won't be considered Chinese.
Narz
keeping it real
Hmm, a guy who did a 3 second Google search and read cliff notes of a book vs a guy who's lived in a country for, what Zar, 50 years? I wonder who's opinion should get more weight...
Want to lecture me about New York City too?
You are now banned from discussing the UK. I've lived there longer than you, ergo, I am always right.
See how dumb this is?
This trend of devaluing expert opinion just because you're predisposed to not believing the poster who made them is tiresome. Put "segregation in NZ" into Google yourself, do your own reading. But if you want to put absolute faith in the opinion of a single New Zealander, well, that's your choice. I don't see you choosing that in other threads, where other posters may or may not be subject experts though
If you said "there is no crime in NY", I'd laugh at you too. I don't need to go to NY to go "hey, maybe this dude is incorrect", and then do some research, and find out yeah, the dude is incorrect. Or at least, arguably incorrect.
EnglishEdward
Deity
As far as I am concerned Zardnaar is the expert on New Zealand.
As I already said, folks are more than welcome to.
I didn't realise discussions were a vote, personally
Zardnaar
Deity
44 years. I do live in a bit of a bubble eg one of the most liberal electorate in the country and probably the youngest.
Less BS where I live.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
I've heard other New Zealanders talk about how they handled race better than other Anglo countries. I tend to believe them on that, considering how low the bar for that is.
I do think America has a similar stance of anyone can become an American. Most white and black Americans have ancestry from multiple ethnic groups, and so it makes little sense to identify with any home ethnic group. More recent immigrants tend to still have ties to their home ethnicity, but they are also still Americans. I think if a country was established by immigrants, it makes ethnic nationalism and anti-immigration sentiment less popular.
I do think America has a similar stance of anyone can become an American. Most white and black Americans have ancestry from multiple ethnic groups, and so it makes little sense to identify with any home ethnic group. More recent immigrants tend to still have ties to their home ethnicity, but they are also still Americans. I think if a country was established by immigrants, it makes ethnic nationalism and anti-immigration sentiment less popular.
Similar threads
