[RD] Where BLM Isn't Needed

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
21,510
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
This thread is about how to run a country where BLM isn't needed. As most of you know I'm from NZ. Here our expectations of America is fairly low, carried a bit further the country is seem as a bit of a joke often a bad one.

Out of the Anglo Saxon families NZ is a lot more eglatarian than our cousins in the rest of the Anglosphere. This is because of the culture going back to the 19th century.

I would be lying if I said racism doesn't exist here but it's more of a casual sort, not the virulent strain that you see in the US. We never had slavery or segregation. We don't really have many blacks either and most are African not African Americans.

So why is this? One thing that makes NZ unique us the Maori culture who are similar to the numbers of African Americans. Colonialism was not good to them but they were never slaves except the ones that were enslaved by other tribes.

The other traditional minority is Chinese. They turned up to work the gold fields in the 19th century. They've been here longer than the concept of NZ as a nation. Early on the proto NZers saw themselves as British not NZers. Empire day was a thing.

The Maori are us. The joke here is race relations are going to be solved between the bed sheets. Intermarriage here was very common back in the days when the first Europeans here were whalers and not settlers. A lot of NZ families have Polynesians in them. I personally have Polynesian cousins and they get invited to social events as part of the family.

Informally every NZers is a kiwi. A Kiwi cuts across racial lines and it gives as a national identity. Foreigners can become a citizen but it's a bit harder to become a kiwi. Not impossible but if you're raised here you automatically become one. Doesn't really matter what colour your skin is.

The other main thing is the public school system. Basically rich, poor, black, white, brown, yellow etc you all go to the same schools. They are ranked from decile 1 (poor) to decile 10 (rich) based on the surrounding area. Low decile schools get extra government funding. My high school was decile 6 in small town NZ.

The surrounding kids in the rural areas get bused in, the urban kids don't have much choice it was kind of the only school (for boys). Rich, poor you all got the same education. More importantly you got to socialize togather.

Pretty much every kiwi male and a good chunk of the females know how to play rugby. Even if you don't like it you play it at school. Being good at rugby is kind of race blind. At high school it's the NZ equivalent of jocks. It's also team building though drummed into you from childhood.

Main point is the schools were not segregated. Neither was the town. This has somewhat recently started to break down in Auckland and the larger cities along economic lines as school districts introduced zoning laws in the 90s. I live in the South though the North is a bit different.

A side effect of the schooling system is you also pick up basic Maori even in the deep South where there used to be very few (internal migration has changed things recently, priced out of the North). Every Maori is automatically a Kiwi, so is every Pakeha, not every white person is though (sorry Europe).

Example.
Tahi, ruha, toru, wha. 1,2,3,4 Seseme Street here had Maori not Spanish.

Tangi- funeral
Hangi- earth oven
Iwi-tribe
Haka-type of dance
Kai- food.

Most children of immigrants going through the school system automatically become kiwis. Some don't but they more or less have to go out of their way to avoid becoming a kiwi.

Net result is we haven't had that break down USA is experiencing or the UK is going through. We lack the casual racism Australia has towards the Aboriginals. Since the 19th century we've had integrated schools and 3 cultures living togather more or less in peace. More cultures have arrived recently.

We haven't had a mass shooting by a kiwi in over a generation. The police are unarmed, 37 iirc police have been killed ever. Riots are practically unheard of, street protests violence is practically unheard of. It's something you read about in 40's and 50's history.

Overall it's generally very safe. I've got blind drunk and passed out in a park and not been robbed or pick pocketed. Town I grew up in you didn't have to lock the doors or the car. By international standards we are politically stable, not very corrupt and reasonably well off.

Culturally we're the closest to the Aussies, I think we've also got a lot in common with Canada. I would be lying if I claimed it's perfect here. Bad things can still happen obviously. We've had 5 tourists murdered here in 30 years for example.

This is how we have done some things. The kiwi concept and how you treat each other is a large part of how to run a society IMHO.
 
Moderator Action: Since this is likely to become a nasty hotbed of political opinions, judging by the subject matter, I am going to make this an RD thread. Please conduct yourselves accordingly.
 
We had English teacher from Australia and she presented us aboriginal problem, showing us Yothu Yindi music group etc and I would not realy place it among the succesful integrations. But I dont know differences about NZ Maori. In CZ we have gypsies and Vietnamese, but these had at least choice to move, unlike Afroamericans and Aboriginals.
 
We had English teacher from Australia and she presented us aboriginal problem, showing us Yothu Yindi music group etc and I would not realy place it among the succesful integrations. But I dont know differences about NZ Maori. In CZ we have gypsies and Vietnamese, but these had at least choice to move, unlike Afroamericans and Aboriginals.

The Maori had a higher level of development to European colonial eyes.

Aboriginals look a bit different and had smaller communities.

Maori had things Europeans could recognize like fences, the PA hill forts weren't drastically different from older European ones. They had gardens etc.

They also got a treaty, weren't seen as vermin to be wiped out and in the wars they win some battles so had that Victorian "Noble Savage ".

The first Europeans were also heavily outnumbered so had to o-operate with the tribes. Much like the Gurkha's they were seen as warrior people and ended up serving in WW1/2.

There's also photos from the 19th Century.

https://flashbak.com/44-captivating-native-maori-portraits-fom-19th-century-new-zealand-32789/


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pinterest.nz/amp/bradwalker/maori-old-photos/

I think Maori men got the right to vote before white women iirc.

They were never really percieved as slaves, vermin etc. Xintporary literature is kinda racist by modern standards but good by 19th century.

At school we also got to visit the local Marae, get a greeting, stay overnight etc. Lessons from Maori historians etc.
 
Last edited:
Native Americans were technically never slaves in the US, but that doesn't mean they're not treated like crap anyway.
 
Native Americans were technically never slaves in the US, but that doesn't mean they're not treated like crap anyway.

Maori got the rough end up the stick here but they weren't rounded up and dumped on reservations.

Colonial authorities tried integrating them, heavy handed by modern standards. Wasn't fun or pleasant but they weren't segregated or had their votes suppressed, redlined etc.
 
This is where I really feel privilege, we are the majority in our country and nobody can claim the same privilege. Germans tried it but we sent them far away. Non native Americans, Australians or New Zealanders could always feel, doesnt matter how rightfully or not rightfully, that they conquered and robbed foreign land and draged other nations in. I really like Die stem van Suid Afrika but the feeling is still that people were misplaced and shall try the moon to have feel like real pioneers.
 
This is where I really feel privilege, we are the majority in our country and nobody can claim the same privilege. Germans tried it but we sent them far away. Non native Americans, Australians or New Zealanders could always feel, doesnt matter how rightfully or not rightfully, that they conquered and robbed foreign land and draged other nations in. I really like Die stem van Suid Afrika but the feeling is still that people were misplaced and shall try the moon to have feel like real pioneers.

A lot of nation's are built on conquest. I don't feel bad about it.

How you treat each other going forward matters more IMHO.
 
This is where I really feel privilege, we are the majority in our country and nobody can claim the same privilege. Germans tried it but we sent them far away.

Are you trying to endorse the expulsions of Germans after WW2? A lot of people died from that, you know. Many of them were unaffiliated with the Nazi regime or the war, because it mostly hit elderly people, kids, and people without much family. Lots of suicide, too, and of course czech nationalist army killing people left and right.

Expulsion of Germans from German-majority regions (and let's not kid ourselves, there were German-speaking majority regions in Czech Republic (Böhmen und Mehren), Poland and other eastern European territories. nevertheless I can understand the backlash against the German-speaking populations, it pretty much had to come this way. The way you tell this story it sounds like Czech people were expelling German-speaking peoples from their rightful clay. The way it really happened, is that these people were neither German nor Czech, but their own ethnicity, and were largely expelled for association (and sometimes collaboration) with Nazis. Sudeten were not strictly Germans just like Austrians were not strictly Germans.

A lot of nation's are built on conquest. I don't feel bad about it.

How you treat each other going forward matters more IMHO.

I feel like this is just dumb. The rich families in any slave-nation, what is their wealth build on? Where did their inheritance come from? "Looking forward" just means ignoring where the status quo actually came from, and in 99% of cases the entire white population benefitted, to some degree, off of slavery (or cheap workers in general) and those benefits extent to today. What you are asking for is essentially to keep this unfair wealth/advantage and act like it doesn't exist.

Example: In Germany one of the richest families (Quante they're called) made their fortune during the Third Reich. This family employs thousands of people and is generally seen as respected, even though it is highly likely they made their money off of robberies, the misfortune and slave-work of jews and the war machinery. It seems clearly wrong that this money keeps being inherited by a new generation, it's essentially freaking blood money, but is used to fuel the status quo and no one complains, because we have to "look forward".
 
Are you trying to endorse the expulsions of Germans after WW2? A lot of people died from that, you know. Many of them were unaffiliated with the Nazi regime or the war, because it mostly hit elderly people, kids, and people without much family. Lots of suicide, too, and of course czech nationalist army killing people left and right.

Expulsion of Germans from German-majority regions (and let's not kid ourselves, there were German-speaking majority regions in Czech Republic (Böhmen und Mehren), Poland and other eastern European territories. nevertheless I can understand the backlash against the German-speaking populations, it pretty much had to come this way. The way you tell this story it sounds like Czech people were expelling German-speaking peoples from their rightful clay. The way it really happened, is that these people were neither German nor Czech, but their own ethnicity, and were largely expelled for association (and sometimes collaboration) with Nazis. Sudeten were not strictly Germans just like Austrians were not strictly Germans.
I do not endorse it, you are right. My sentiment is mixed, part of me is glad that we have no multicultural problems with Germans, part of me is very sad that we lost German (and Jewish) culture and neighbours. And of course there were terrible things committed by Czechs after war.
 
Last edited:
And of course there were terrible things committed by Czechs after war.

As there were terrible things commited by Germans and Sudeten, no doubt. As so often in history, a lot of people, some innocent, have to pay for the screw-ups of others. Just like how many German women paid tremendously when the allies and Russians came back to rape en masse. It's a messy history but a very interesting one!
 
I was told by a returning Brit teacher that it is your national religion.

Doesn't do a lot for me but yeah.

Every school I went to had a rugby field. Last time I played was a couple of years ago. Mixed gender touch rugby (no tackling).

At school we had Scrag. You used a rugby ball and it was just tackling. No try line, no rules anything goes. They ended up banning it.

Main reason I played last time was to fit in socially. Sister was playing when I visited and I went along to sports day with my niece who was playing netball, adults played touch rugby.
 
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...college-teachers-are-racist-towards-her-peers


https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national...mplain-over-black-lives-matter-poster-removal

The teachers ripped down BLM posters.

As I said not perfect here. Other articles have said the posters were taken down because they didn't ask to put them up.

Once they asked permission other schools allowed it.

From memory in the 90's politics and religion were mostly kept out of high schools.

Teachers can be fairly picky about a variety of stupid rules though.
 
A lot of nation's are built on conquest. I don't feel bad about it.

I'm hard pressed to think of one that isn't. Which is why fixating on past wrongs, when they become several generations removed,, increasingly makes no sense: the situation cannot be resolved by reverting specific events on the past.
But the present bad consequences of those events, if they do still exist, need resolving. In ways that do not necessarily will have something to do with what happened in the past.

I feel like this is just dumb. The rich families in any slave-nation, what is their wealth build on? Where did their inheritance come from? "Looking forward" just means ignoring where the status quo actually came from, and in 99% of cases the entire white population benefitted, to some degree, off of slavery (or cheap workers in general) and those benefits extent to today. What you are asking for is essentially to keep this unfair wealth/advantage and act like it doesn't exist.

Example: In Germany one of the richest families (Quante they're called) made their fortune during the Third Reich. This family employs thousands of people and is generally seen as respected, even though it is highly likely they made their money off of robberies, the misfortune and slave-work of jews and the war machinery. It seems clearly wrong that this money keeps being inherited by a new generation, it's essentially freaking blood money, but is used to fuel the status quo and no one complains, because we have to "look forward".

To start with I'm going to object to the "white" in there. There was slavery on "non-white" nations also. Plenty. White on white, black on black and many other combinations. Even, as you say, german on jew during the nazi years and that wasn't really "race", as the americans understand it, whatever the nazis believed. Saying this to point out that the american culture wars over "white" and "black" do not simply apply to the rest of the world, the world is a diverse place! It irks me to see young impressionable fools in Europe imitating whatever comes out of american media.

Then there's the issue of inheritances. How do you distinguish "virtuous" from "unvirtuous" riches,once they come down as inheritances? There's a practical solution for this (and it fixes also so many other problems": rather large and progressive inheritance taxes and you can cease worrying about even trying to distinguish it.

It all goes back to the exploitation of man by man. If you disallow it, or at least make it extremely hard, can these un-virtuous wealth even come into being in the first place? Can slavery exist? Can weaker groups be exploited, kept in legal inferiority like servants and slaves of the past, or legal limbos like so many immigrants today? More equal societies naturally resolve all these problems. The ones that encourage, glorify the pursuit of inequality, always create groups of exploited people. One can't exist without the other. What's the point of fixing racism against the black in America, if the black must them be replaced as an exploited class by some other group? When nations trod the path of inequality then if they don't already have an underclass they will import one. The current undeniable proof of this are the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. But the phony "welcome to refuges" in Europe a few years ago was the same process.
I think that, unsurprisingly, it will be easy to demonstrate that New Zealand is a more equal society than the US, and that feature of the present, more than any of the past, is the explanation for the differences.
 
Last edited:
To start with I'm going to object to the "white" in there. There was slavery on "non-white" nations also. Plenty. White on white, black on black and many other combinations. Even, as you say, german on jew during the nazi years and that wasn't really "race", as the americans understand it, whatever the nazis believed. Saying this to point out that the american culture wars over "white" and "black" do not simply apply to the rest of the world, the world is a diverse place! It irks me to see young impressionable fools in Europe imitating whatever comes out of american media.

I agree with everything here.

I
Then there's the issue of inheritances. How do you distinguish "virtuous" from "unvirtuous" riches,once they come down as inheritances? There's a practical solution for this (and it fixes also so many other problems": rather large and progressive inheritance taxes and you can cease worrying about even trying to distinguish it.

I think all form of inheritance is strictly amoral, and I also think capital accumulation is to a degree amoral (note: this doesn't mean earning a wage, but rather earning interest on your already existing capital). So I do not have the problem with needing to distinguish between blood money inheritance and "fair" inheritance, because I believe the latter is oxymoronic. Inheritance is unfair by principle.

But the phony "welcome to refuges" in Europe a few years ago was the same process.

Can you explain what you mean by that? In my mind, it was a very simple decision of letting millions of people die or drown (what most of Europe and the USA, who were responsible for the crisis in the first place, actually wanted) and saving some of those people from dieing (which is what we ended up doing). Is your problem with the attitude? Can you elaborate on that a bit?
 
Back
Top Bottom