8 ms·

Its not “co-governance”. Its privileging a demographic with greater power under the law based on skin color. Thats apartheid.

• andrei_says_ 3y ago
  Is t the case that this “privilege” is an attempt to balance oppression and / or the existing privileges of others?
  • huggingmouth 3y ago
    Two wrongs do not make right. It's fascinating that we live in an age where this needs to be said out loud.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • EliRivers 3y ago
      "Two wrongs do not make right." That's quite a strong statement to just present as an axiom without even any evidence or premises leading to it. Can you justify this statement, or do we have to just accept it as an axiom?
      • aydyn 3y ago
        lol nice trolling
      • carlosjobim 3y ago
        It's one of the most common divide in philosophy and morals, and I think nobody is capable of changing their opinion, because this one question is fundamental in how a person sees the world. Should you punish the children for what the fathers did wrong? Because whoever wronged the people are dead since long. The people who were wronged are dead since long. Do the children inherit the sins or the victimhood of their ancestors? Some say yes. They say to the youth: "Look how bad these people were treated long before you were born! Now it's your responsibility to settle the score and pay back." Others say no. They say that nobody can be held responsible for the wrongs that other people have done, even if those people were their ancestors, or are considered their ancestors by modern measurements. The question is if somebody is to be seen as an individual and judged as an individual, or seen as a member of some tribe and judged as a member of that tribe. It's worth to mention that things are usually seen in another way. What we're seeing right now is the end of christian morality, where a victim is held in high regard. This is not common through history or through the world. Once these kind of victim-revering morals don't exist anymore, the attitude will instead be: "Your ancestors were slaves, therefore you deserve to be a slave" or "My ancestors conquered your ancestors, therefore we have the right to treat you as we wish" and such awful things.
    • ben_w 3y ago
      Sometimes a single wrong can be its own right. The word "harem" is derived from Arabic/Persian for "forbidden"; it was a place where men were not allowed, and thus a considered a safe space for the women within. Little Boy turned actual little boys into carbon ash imprints on the concrete where they sat and ate lunch; it probably saved many more children from burning up in a sustained campaign of carpet-bombings. To create a new power group to balance rights? It's unstable, but it also leads to things like "women, as well as men, get to vote" and "workers can organise their labour via trade unions, just as owners can organise their capital via shareholdings and loans".
  • aydyn 3y ago
    so what? I dont want to be part of a society with built in racist laws.
• lostlogin 3y ago
  When they were actively blocked from governance for a long time and effectively blocked for most the rest, is it really apartheid to have Māori represent their views? It’s also what was guaranteed in our founding document - depending on how you read it. That dubious piece of legal work managed to botch the key term ‘governance’ such that interpretation is required and it may, or may not guarantee Māori governance of the country. Comparing NZ to apartheid South Africa is darkly funny. The oppression I face is underwhelming. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-faqs#WhatdoestheTreatysay https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-faqs#Whatdo...
• skissane 3y ago
  > Its privileging a demographic with greater power under the law based on skin color. Thats apartheid It literally speaking isn’t based on skin colour. In Australia (I think the situation in NZ is similar?) indigenous status is based on descent, identification, and acceptance by the community. Unlike the “blood quantum laws” which apply for Native Americans in the US, there is no minimum percentage of indigenous ancestry required. So you have people, the majority of whose ancestors are European, and who look physically indistinguishable from other European-descended Australians, but who have some indigenous ancestry, who choose to identify with that ancestry, and whose identification is accepted by a recognised indigenous community - they are legally indigenous. An indigenous person can have any skin colour, and due to trends in intermarriage and indigenous identification (which is optional), the distribution of skin colours is changing over time.
  • agentgumshoe 3y ago
    Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous? It is referring to a culture contextualised by skin colour. It's all signalling. In Australia there are support and administrative bodies at all level of government interacting with aboriginal communities (often failing for different reasons, mostly budget). A 'Voice' (which is still vaguely defined as having influence but no power) does not magically create harmony between the past and future, it only continues the divide. We are stuck in a world of trying to simultaneously give back the 'old past' while carrying on as-is otherwise. That is impossible. We must work towards a common, prosperous and respectful future for all inhabitants that recognises and admits the things we can't undo or change. We are trying to have it both ways, and it will leave the divides strongly in place.
    • freejazz 3y ago
      >Which makes it a little odd to separate out 'indigenous' as needing a separate legal or advisory entity doesn't it? What is the position of the 1% indigenous? It is referring to a culture contextualised by skin colour. Weird how you seem to recognize what culture is, yet in the same sentence it means nothing more than sharing a skin tone