thedailyblog--2020-11-26--In Riposte To A Journalist’s Outrage At Sanskrit Being Uttered In Our Nation’s Parliamen

Late yesterday evening , I noticed something strange on Twitter .
‘ Sanskrit ’ was trending – in New Zealand .
Finding this rather unexpected , yet pretty positive , I went to check out why .
It turned out that one of Labour ’ s newly minted MPs – Dr Gaurav Sharma – had taken his Oath of Allegiance in Sanskrit , and also in Te Reo Maori .
I thought this was a nice development .
An MP making tasteful nods to both his own heritage , and also to the Maori sphere that is an indigenous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language that came here , and a language that ’ s of here .
Treaty partnership and all that .
Unfortunately , that wasn ’ t quite why ‘ Sanskrit ’ was being so avidly discussed here in New Zealand on Twitter .
Rather , a Kiwi journalist by the name of Michael Field , whom I ’ ve never previously heard of … had taken to the platform to express his outrage that this had occurred .
And , in the process , kicked off a bit of an international contratemps as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Why did he object to Sharma ’ s making use of his ancestral tongue to swear the Oath required of a Parliamentarian ?
Because , in Field ’ s own words … Sanskrit is apparently “ a language of religious oppression & caste superiority ” , and “ [ a ] mark of Hindutva – mark of fundamentalism.
” He also apparently felt that this may have called into question “ Labour ’ s working class values ” and posed a question of his own – whether Sharma was , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to be having a pretty bad day , because in his haste he then managed to tag in the wrong Gaurav whilst demanding an explanation from Gaurav Sharma – so there ’ s a completely unrelated Gaurav in New Delhi at the moment with only a few hundred followers presumably wondering just what on earth is going on in Kiwiland that ’ s got anything to do with him right now .
But to return to Field ’ s statements , before we explain what ’ s really going on here .. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sharma ’ s Sanskrit oath goes like this : In reply to a twitter account called ‘ Indians In New Zealand ’ , Field said this : “ This is nothing to do with multiculturalism – this is Modi ’ s caste politics straight and simple .
Sadly NZ Labour seems to have forgotten their roots ; caste has no place in NZ.
” And in reply to another Kiwi who asked him if he was feeling alright given the outlandishness of his initial sentiments , he added : “ Having been frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brahmin politics are vivid & result in riots over being forced to speak another language , I was surprised to see a Labour MP heading down that route .
And I am feeling fine ” So in essence , Field saw Sharma ’ s invocation of Sanskrit as being the imposition of “ a language of religious oppression & caste superiority ” , incipient religious “ fundamentalism ” , the introduction of “ caste ” ( somehow ) , and basically a beachhead for “ Modi ’ s [ … ] politics ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because to start from the back … it implies that he thinks Sharma is attempting to act as a vector for a foreign political leader and party by swearing allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand .
Now , to my mind there are two closely interrelated considerations here when it comes to unpacking what ’ s happened in Field ’ s head .
A really complicated situation , no doubt .
The first , is that he ’ s effectively posited that Sharma acknowledging and making active use of his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreducibly Indian ( or , in Field ’ s own words , a “ token ” ) – but also an alien and incompatible element with New Zealand and our broader ethos as a result of that .
He ’ s suggested that it ’ s “ Labour ’ s working class values ” that Sharma is purportedly at odds with – which is further peculiar , because Labour stopped really being an overweeningly ‘ working class ’ party several decades ago .
I must have missed Field taking issue with the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a similar basis .
Perhaps he wasn ’ t so worried about those other MPs because they spoke in English – which , as we all know , has not been a “ language of [ … ] oppression ” for some years now , unless spoken with an American accent .
But the second element which must be considered is how Field has construed Hinduism and Indian cultural ( in this case specifically linguistic ) heritage .
As something apparently intrinsically and irreducibly “ oppressive ” , bound up with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
In the wake of the Christchurch Mosque shootings last year , we had a prayer performed in our Parliament in Arabic .
Was Field similarly aghast , declaring that Arabic and the Muslim faith which it is strongly associated with , to be a tongue and ethos of “ oppression ” , “ fundamentalism ” , and “ superiority ” ?
I ’ d certainly hope not .
So why us ?
[ And I say ‘ us ’ , because as both a devout Hindu , and internationally published authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily use of Sanskrit for both religious purposes and in my work ] Well , I ’ d hazard that Mr Field has basically gleaned the vast sum of his views on our religion from a comparatively limited perspective .
I ’ m not going to be so uncharitable as to suggest it ’ s all from some shrill ultra-liberal ‘ awoken ’ types , as he does state that he ’ s visited India at some point ( although curiously , refused to say when repeatedly asked just where in India it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where there were “ riots ” occurring in reaction to some purported enforcement of Sanskrit ) ; but wherever he ’ s gotten his ( mis ) information from , it ’ s like some sort of bad fun-house mirror – everything ’ s not only distorted , but actively the wrong way around .
It may perhaps surprise Field to learn this , but Sanskrit is not some sort of “ Modi ” invention come up with in a bid to propel “ caste politics ” back in India ( something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Modi would have to be spectacularly bad at – his own party ’ s successful candidate for President of India , the currently serving Ram Nath Kovind is a Dalit , an Untouchable ; whilst Modi himself is a Vaishya – a merchant .
So much for Brahmin supremacy … ) .
Instead , Sanskrit is arguably the oldest continuously spoken language of mankind – still having more than ten thousand ‘ native ’ speakers today in India and finding active use across the world by Hindus for a liturgical language in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latin for the Catholics pre-Vatican II .
Its roots run incredibly deeply , with the oldest attested texts in this language dating back to roughly three and a half thousand years ago ; and the leaves and branches of its tree spanning incredibly broadly – most of India , as well as large swathes of Pakistan , Bangladesh , Nepal , and places even further afield speak languages that are ultimately descended from Sanskrit .
Almost a billion people in the world today have this language as a rather integral part of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious dimension is taken into consideration .
That was a large part of why Sharma chose to make use of Sanskrit for his Oath – precisely because it was a way of acknowledging the broad ( north ) Indian spectrum of community .
Not because Sanskrit is somehow exclusive to Brahmins ( it isn ’ t – as Sharma pointed out , when he ’ d gone to school it was a compulsory language for all students ; presumably in much the same manner that Latin used to be at various secondary schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it happens , the one I went to even in the 21st century – one wonders whether taking the Oath in Latin ( or , for that matter , any of the Latinate legal terms still made active use of therein ) would trigger Field into a fit of apoplexy about the Government somehow becoming an apologist for the atrocities of the Roman Empire ) So how is it that we wound up with an incredibly ancient and broadly pervasive language being pidgeonholed into evidently near-exclusive ( mis- ) association with a relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To put it bluntly , I suspect that it is because for Field and others like him – all actual Hinduism , all actual Indian cultural heritage is hidden ‘ Hindutva ’ extremism .
It ’ s rather like how , in the 1950s in America , being cautiously in favour of a worker getting a fair day ’ s pay for a fair day ’ s work made one a dyed- ( red- ) in-the-wool “ Communist ” in the eyes of some people .
Or how , for an ongoing period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an Arab , a Muslim , on an international aircraft might lead to some irascible American having a panic about how you must be a terrorist .
Any number of Sikhs were physically attacked for exactly this reason over the same period by ordinary Americans who ’ d completely misunderstood something that was not theirs , was somewhat obscure to them , and which seemed like it might be a threat just going off what they ’ d seen on the news .
People often work themselves up into a lather of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustices meted out overseas , and then attempt to replicate the alleged ‘ restorative ’ action they think should have happened over there , in the comfort of their own back yard at home .
Maybe it helps them to feel useful ; maybe it ’ s a cover for other impulses .
Whatever it is , it ’ s evidently lead Field to feel that the simple act of speaking Sanskrit is an incredibly ‘ problematic ’ war-cry for something that he profoundly disagrees with .
And therein lies the trouble .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we really drilled down into it , there are no overt expressions of Hinduism that he would think are not somehow “ oppressive ” .
He has not said this , of course , and perhaps he has not even given it much thought .
But if we are not allowed to speak nor otherwise make use of our ancient liturgical language because he is afraid of its connotation … what exactly constitutes ‘ allowable ’ expressions of Hinduism for him ?
Shall he be banning my Mandir from having the fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of Nazi use of the symbol ?
When my research institute makes use of ‘ Arya ’ in its title and its motto [ ‘ Arya Akasha ’ , and ‘ Krinvanto Vishvam Aryam ’ , respectively ] – is Field going to likewise declare that these are ‘ oppressive ’ due to a certain 20th century political phenomenon which was quite big on “ Aryan ” as a term ?
Ultimately , the question is quite a simple one .
If he genuinely feels that even things which have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very specific politics he claims to abhor , are somehow symbols and weaponized tools of same … then does he actually have any mental distinction between ‘ Hindutva ’ and ‘ Hindu ’ .
Or is every single one of the more than one hundred and twenty thousands of us here , representing New Zealand ’ s largest non-Christian community of faith , some sort of blatantly obvious Hindu extremist – to be hounded from public life and perhaps the country as well .
I would dearly hope that Field was not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his claims on Twitter yesterday .
And that instead , it was the product of that accursed scourge of the Modern Age , ignorance combined with an over-enthusiastic desire to rush in and oppose some alleged social injustice one has read about occurring elsewhere in the world via social media .
Except there are plenty of actual injustices occurring out there in the world – elsewhere in the world I mean – for Mr Field to concern himself with , without having to attempt to transplant and invent one right here to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our nation ’ s Parliament .
Gaurav Sharma MP taking his Oath of Affirmation in Sanskrit ( and also Te Reo Maori ) … was not intended to signify what Michael Field thought it did .
Indeed , it COULD not really signify what Field thought it did , for the many reasons ( and more ) aforementioned .
( Including that Sanskrit is not and has not been for some time , the exclusive preserve of Brahmins – and is learned by many in India as part of standard school education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the religion are quite some orders of magnitude older and broader than one political current in present-day Indian politics ; with the BJP ( Modi ’ s party ) , whatever one thinks of them , also not really being ‘ Brahmin supremacists ’ ; meanwhile , Ambedkar , the incredibly prominent Independence era Indian politician who forsook his native Hinduism to become a Buddhist precisely because of his feelings about the caste system … actually himself championed a push for Sanskrit as a national language for India ) There are no “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ oppressive ” imposition of Sanskrit .
( Although there ARE occasional flare-ups of animosity in the Dravidian-language dominated South about the perceived imposition of Hindi – which is ironic , because Field actually suggested Sharma should have used Hindi instead ; notwithstanding that this is not actually Sharma ’ s own native language , Pahari ) And whilst one could perhaps suggest that , as a doctor of medicine , Gaurav Sharma is not exactly ‘ working class ’ ..
I ’ m not sure how Dr Sharma ’ s inclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vitiation of that party ’ s “ roots ” , “ working class ” or otherwise .
A phrase that I most certainly home Field was not using as a cover for “ White/Anglo/Pakeha ” .
Sanskrit is a truly beautiful language , and I say that as somebody who ’ s spent much of the past half decade working with it near-daily .
I truly do feel that our Parliament – The People ’ s House , the House of Speech – has been enriched for its having been made active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therein .
I also , as a Hindu New Zealander ( although not an Indian ) , feel myself and my community somewhat more represented as the result of this , as well .
It is a small thing , it is a symbolic thing – but in politics , that symbolism can mean everything .
One that shows that Heritage , “ roots ” , matters !
And is valued by us as a nation .
One that shows that , contra to what Field and his ilk may desire , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we are not going to be “ oppressed ” out or marginalized by somebody who would seemingly wish a restatement of Macaulayism ( so named for its instigator – a British Lord who wanted to ‘ de-Sanskritize ’ India and replace this with English , in part as a way of striking against what he viewed as the “ hideous , and grotesque , and ignoble ” ‘ Brahminical religion ’ , as he termed it ) .
On the plus side , this is the first time I think I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to Proto-Indo-European – so there ’ s that .
Although if one is eagerly anticipating Proto-Indo-European actually making an appearance in Parliament ’ s debating chamber , for instance as part of an Oath of Affirmation … you may be waiting some time .

Late yesterday evening, I noticed something strange on Twitter. ‘Sanskrit’ was trending – in New Zealand. Finding this rather unexpected, yet pretty positive, I went to check out why. It turned out that one of Labour’s newly minted MPs – Dr Gaurav Sharma – had taken his Oath of Allegiance in Sanskrit, and also in Te Reo Maori.
I thought this was a nice development. An MP making tasteful nods to both his own heritage, and also to the Maori sphere that is an indigenous, endogenous fundament to New Zealand. A language that came here, and a language that’s of here. Treaty partnership and all that.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t quite why ‘Sanskrit’ was being so avidly discussed here in New Zealand on Twitter.
Rather, a Kiwi journalist by the name of Michael Field, whom I’ve never previously heard of … had taken to the platform to express his outrage that this had occurred. And, in the process, kicked off a bit of an international contratemps as a result.
What did he say? Why did he object to Sharma’s making use of his ancestral tongue to swear the Oath required of a Parliamentarian?
Because, in Field’s own words … Sanskrit is apparently “a language of religious oppression & caste superiority”, and “[a] mark of Hindutva – mark of fundamentalism.” He also apparently felt that this may have called into question “Labour’s working class values” and posed a question of his own – whether Sharma was, in fact, “a token?”
Field appeared to be having a pretty bad day, because in his haste he then managed to tag in the wrong Gaurav whilst demanding an explanation from Gaurav Sharma – so there’s a completely unrelated Gaurav in New Delhi at the moment with only a few hundred followers presumably wondering just what on earth is going on in Kiwiland that’s got anything to do with him right now.
But to return to Field’s statements, before we explain what’s really going on here .. his own explanation for being outraged by Sharma’s Sanskrit oath goes like this:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In reply to a twitter account called ‘Indians In New Zealand’, Field said this:
“This is nothing to do with multiculturalism – this is Modi’s caste politics straight and simple. Sadly NZ Labour seems to have forgotten their roots; caste has no place in NZ.”
And in reply to another Kiwi who asked him if he was feeling alright given the outlandishness of his initial sentiments, he added:
“Having been frequently in area of India where Sanskrit & Brahmin politics are vivid & result in riots over being forced to speak another language, I was surprised to see a Labour MP heading down that route. And I am feeling fine”
So in essence, Field saw Sharma’s invocation of Sanskrit as being the imposition of “a language of religious oppression & caste superiority”, incipient religious “fundamentalism”, the introduction of “caste” (somehow), and basically a beachhead for “Modi’s […] politics” in Aotearoa.
Which is rather odd, because to start from the back … it implies that he thinks Sharma is attempting to act as a vector for a foreign political leader and party by swearing allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand.
Now, to my mind there are two closely interrelated considerations here when it comes to unpacking what’s happened in Field’s head. A really complicated situation, no doubt.
The first, is that he’s effectively posited that Sharma acknowledging and making active use of his own heritage, somehow renders Sharma not only irreducibly Indian (or, in Field’s own words, a “token”) – but also an alien and incompatible element with New Zealand and our broader ethos as a result of that. He’s suggested that it’s “Labour’s working class values” that Sharma is purportedly at odds with – which is further peculiar, because Labour stopped really being an overweeningly ‘working class’ party several decades ago. I must have missed Field taking issue with the vast majority of Labour’s current Caucus on a similar basis.
Perhaps he wasn’t so worried about those other MPs because they spoke in English – which, as we all know, has not been a “language of […] oppression” for some years now, unless spoken with an American accent.
But the second element which must be considered is how Field has construed Hinduism and Indian cultural (in this case specifically linguistic) heritage. As something apparently intrinsically and irreducibly “oppressive”, bound up with “fundamentalism” and a “superiority” agenda.
In the wake of the Christchurch Mosque shootings last year, we had a prayer performed in our Parliament in Arabic. Was Field similarly aghast, declaring that Arabic and the Muslim faith which it is strongly associated with, to be a tongue and ethos of “oppression”, “fundamentalism”, and “superiority” ? I’d certainly hope not.
So why us? [And I say ‘us’, because as both a devout Hindu, and internationally published authority in the field, I make literally daily use of Sanskrit for both religious purposes and in my work]
Well, I’d hazard that Mr Field has basically gleaned the vast sum of his views on our religion from a comparatively limited perspective. I’m not going to be so uncharitable as to suggest it’s all from some shrill ultra-liberal ‘awoken’ types, as he does state that he’s visited India at some point (although curiously, refused to say when repeatedly asked just where in India it was that he’d been to where there were “riots” occurring in reaction to some purported enforcement of Sanskrit); but wherever he’s gotten his (mis)information from, it’s like some sort of bad fun-house mirror – everything’s not only distorted, but actively the wrong way around.
It may perhaps surprise Field to learn this, but Sanskrit is not some sort of “Modi” invention come up with in a bid to propel “caste politics” back in India (something that, if it were actually occurring, Modi would have to be spectacularly bad at – his own party’s successful candidate for President of India, the currently serving Ram Nath Kovind is a Dalit, an Untouchable; whilst Modi himself is a Vaishya – a merchant. So much for Brahmin supremacy … ).
Instead, Sanskrit is arguably the oldest continuously spoken language of mankind – still having more than ten thousand ‘native’ speakers today in India and finding active use across the world by Hindus for a liturgical language in a manner perhaps comparable to the use of Latin for the Catholics pre-Vatican II.
Its roots run incredibly deeply, with the oldest attested texts in this language dating back to roughly three and a half thousand years ago; and the leaves and branches of its tree spanning incredibly broadly – most of India, as well as large swathes of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and places even further afield speak languages that are ultimately descended from Sanskrit. Almost a billion people in the world today have this language as a rather integral part of their cultural an civilizational heritage even before the religious dimension is taken into consideration.
That was a large part of why Sharma chose to make use of Sanskrit for his Oath – precisely because it was a way of acknowledging the broad (north) Indian spectrum of community. Not because Sanskrit is somehow exclusive to Brahmins (it isn’t – as Sharma pointed out, when he’d gone to school it was a compulsory language for all students; presumably in much the same manner that Latin used to be at various secondary schools in the Anglosphere, including, as it happens, the one I went to even in the 21st century – one wonders whether taking the Oath in Latin (or, for that matter, any of the Latinate legal terms still made active use of therein) would trigger Field into a fit of apoplexy about the Government somehow becoming an apologist for the atrocities of the Roman Empire)
So how is it that we wound up with an incredibly ancient and broadly pervasive language being pidgeonholed into evidently near-exclusive (mis-)association with a relatively recent political phenomenon in contemporary India?
To put it bluntly, I suspect that it is because for Field and others like him – all actual Hinduism, all actual Indian cultural heritage is hidden ‘Hindutva’ extremism. It’s rather like how, in the 1950s in America, being cautiously in favour of a worker getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work made one a dyed-(red-)in-the-wool “Communist” in the eyes of some people. Or how, for an ongoing period following 9/11, looking like you might be an Arab, a Muslim, on an international aircraft might lead to some irascible American having a panic about how you must be a terrorist.
Any number of Sikhs were physically attacked for exactly this reason over the same period by ordinary Americans who’d completely misunderstood something that was not theirs, was somewhat obscure to them, and which seemed like it might be a threat just going off what they’d seen on the news.
People often work themselves up into a lather of a moral ‘crusade’ about perceived injustices meted out overseas, and then attempt to replicate the alleged ‘restorative’ action they think should have happened over there, in the comfort of their own back yard at home. Maybe it helps them to feel useful; maybe it’s a cover for other impulses.
Whatever it is, it’s evidently lead Field to feel that the simple act of speaking Sanskrit is an incredibly ‘problematic’ war-cry for something that he profoundly disagrees with.
And therein lies the trouble. Because for Field, I think that if we really drilled down into it, there are no overt expressions of Hinduism that he would think are not somehow “oppressive”. He has not said this, of course, and perhaps he has not even given it much thought.
But if we are not allowed to speak nor otherwise make use of our ancient liturgical language because he is afraid of its connotation … what exactly constitutes ‘allowable’ expressions of Hinduism for him? Shall he be banning my Mandir from having the fine Swastika-carved doors to the shrines, too, because of Nazi use of the symbol? When my research institute makes use of ‘Arya’ in its title and its motto [‘Arya Akasha’, and ‘Krinvanto Vishvam Aryam’, respectively] – is Field going to likewise declare that these are ‘oppressive’ due to a certain 20th century political phenomenon which was quite big on “Aryan” as a term?
Ultimately, the question is quite a simple one. If he genuinely feels that even things which have no necessary connection to nor connotation of the very specific politics he claims to abhor, are somehow symbols and weaponized tools of same … then does he actually have any mental distinction between ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hindu’. Or is every single one of the more than one hundred and twenty thousands of us here, representing New Zealand’s largest non-Christian community of faith, some sort of blatantly obvious Hindu extremist – to be hounded from public life and perhaps the country as well.
I would dearly hope that Field was not in earnest with the clear and unctuous implications of his claims on Twitter yesterday. And that instead, it was the product of that accursed scourge of the Modern Age, ignorance combined with an over-enthusiastic desire to rush in and oppose some alleged social injustice one has read about occurring elsewhere in the world via social media.
Except there are plenty of actual injustices occurring out there in the world – elsewhere in the world I mean – for Mr Field to concern himself with, without having to attempt to transplant and invent one right here to his own (political) back yard in our nation’s Parliament.
So, to recap:
Gaurav Sharma MP taking his Oath of Affirmation in Sanskrit (and also Te Reo Maori) … was not intended to signify what Michael Field thought it did.
Indeed, it COULD not really signify what Field thought it did, for the many reasons (and more) aforementioned. (Including that Sanskrit is not and has not been for some time, the exclusive preserve of Brahmins – and is learned by many in India as part of standard school education; and that both the language and the religion are quite some orders of magnitude older and broader than one political current in present-day Indian politics; with the BJP (Modi’s party), whatever one thinks of them, also not really being ‘Brahmin supremacists’; meanwhile, Ambedkar, the incredibly prominent Independence era Indian politician who forsook his native Hinduism to become a Buddhist precisely because of his feelings about the caste system … actually himself championed a push for Sanskrit as a national language for India)
There are no “riots” occurring in India due to an “oppressive” imposition of Sanskrit. (Although there ARE occasional flare-ups of animosity in the Dravidian-language dominated South about the perceived imposition of Hindi – which is ironic, because Field actually suggested Sharma should have used Hindi instead; notwithstanding that this is not actually Sharma’s own native language, Pahari)
And whilst one could perhaps suggest that, as a doctor of medicine, Gaurav Sharma is not exactly ‘working class’ .. I’m not sure how Dr Sharma’s inclusion in Labour’s 2020 Caucus is a vitiation of that party’s “roots”, “working class” or otherwise. A phrase that I most certainly home Field was not using as a cover for “White/Anglo/Pakeha”.
Sanskrit is a truly beautiful language, and I say that as somebody who’s spent much of the past half decade working with it near-daily. I truly do feel that our Parliament – The People’s House, the House of Speech – has been enriched for its having been made active use of for this small-but-important ceremony occurrant therein.
I also, as a Hindu New Zealander (although not an Indian), feel myself and my community somewhat more represented as the result of this, as well. It is a small thing, it is a symbolic thing – but in politics, that symbolism can mean everything. One that shows that Heritage, “roots”, matters! And is valued by us as a nation. One that shows that, contra to what Field and his ilk may desire, we too have a place here. And that we are not going to be “oppressed” out or marginalized by somebody who would seemingly wish a restatement of Macaulayism (so named for its instigator – a British Lord who wanted to ‘de-Sanskritize’ India and replace this with English, in part as a way of striking against what he viewed as the “hideous, and grotesque, and ignoble” ‘Brahminical religion’, as he termed it).
On the plus side, this is the first time I think I’ve seen a New Zealand MP make reference to Proto-Indo-European – so there’s that.
Although if one is eagerly anticipating Proto-Indo-European actually making an appearance in Parliament’s debating chamber, for instance as part of an Oath of Affirmation … you may be waiting some time.


thedailyblog--2020-11-26--Jewish and Palestinian solidarity

Jewish and Palestinian solidarity

This Sunday , 29 November , the United Nations Organisation and human rights supporters globally commemorate an annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People , established in 1977 .
At 7pm in Auckland , the Palestinian Community of NZ and the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa ( PSNA ) will play their part , holding an event at the Western Springs Garden Community Hall , 956 Great North Road .
There will be a number of speakers and it is hoped , but not yet confirmed , that our new Foreign Affairs Minister , Nanaia Mahuta , will also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasion will also be available for live viewing .
In a somewhat personalised criticism of PSNA Chair , John Minto , published on the Israel Institute of New Zealand ’ s website , Sheree Trotter takes particular exception John mentioning Israel ’ s brutal , criminal suppression of the Great March of Return protests in Gaza .
She does so by quoting from a case study for the ICRC that was prepared by a student at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights .
Its language largely reflects Israeli and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squarely on unarmed civilian victims of superior Israeli military force .
The student ’ s account differs strangely in tone to facts already recognised by the Academy which has acknowledged , for instance , that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip has been “ catastrophic for the population ” .
Regarding Israel ’ s military Occupation of the West Bank , the Academy has also noted that : “ President Trump ’ s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel happens in a context where efforts to expand settlements in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East Jerusalem , leading to an increase in evictions of Palestinian families.
” Trotter accuses John Minto of “ spouting a distorted picture of what is a complex conflict ” .
Towards the end of her piece , she asserts also that he had delivered a “ distorted narrative about a conflict on the other side of the world .
.
.
” That sounds rather as though she is telling New Zealand to mind its own business when it comes to Israel ’ s crimes against humanity .
As for a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Geneva Academy student ’ s version of events during the protests and the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests , then judge which is closer to the truth .
Here are some excerpts from the Inquiry : “ The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return , Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law .
“ More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers , week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days .
The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018 .
189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period .
The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition .
Thirty-five of these fatalities were children , while three were clearly marked paramedics , and two were clearly marked journalists .
“ There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists , medics , and persons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or serious injury to those around them .
Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities .
“ The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists , health workers , children and persons with disabilities , knowing they were clearly recognisable as such .
“ These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity .
“ The Commission finds that these protests were a call for help from a population in despair .
“ The Israeli authorities did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission for information and access to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
” In a recent IINZ article criticising New Zealand policy towards Palestine , David Cumin expressed anger at a people he discriminately chose to call “ Arab Palestinians ” for daring to have “ pushed for statehood through the ICC ” .
He also claimed that Palestinians “ promoted terror in schools ” and accused MFAT officials of “ attempting to justify spending Kiwi taxpayer money on schools that incite violence ” .
An article in The New York Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that promoted by Cumin , quoting from what it describes as “ an in-depth comparative study of Palestinian and Israeli school textbooks ” entitled Palestinian Textbooks Do Not Incite Hate .
The study was conducted by the Council of Religious Institutions in the Holy Land , a multi-faith body that aims to “ prevent religion from being used as a source of conflict , and to promote mutual respect ” .
While the Israeli Government did not co-operate with the study , the Palestinian Authority did .
The irony here is that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eckert Institute for the Study of Textbooks has revealed , Palestinian textbooks are severely controlled and censored , not only by Israel but also by European and American bodies that finance their production ( see “ Images of identity : Self and other in school text books of the Palestinian Authority ” , June 2011 [ PDF ] ) .
However , there is another aspect that is hidden from public view with , for example , the study skirting around the racism in Israeli schoolbooks and confining the concept of ‘ incitement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militarily Occupied and dominated .
The Wye River Memorandum — signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1998 — included an “ explicit statement about incitement ” stating that “ the Palestinian side would issue a decree prohibiting all forms of incitement to violence or terror , and establishing mechanisms for acting systematically against all expressions or threats of violence or terror .
This decree would be comparable to the existing Israeli legislation which deals with the same subject.
” There is no such provision demanded of the Israeli Occupation regime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Israeli School Books : Ideology and Propaganda in Education ’ Library of Modern Middle East Studies , 2012 , reveals how , in Israeli schoolbooks , Arabs are regularly portrayed as villainous aggressors and Jews as their victims .
Cumin ’ s article , “ Possibilities for the future of New Zealand ’ s approach to Israel ” , referred to above is nothing but Zionist propaganda .
A far more rational approach to future policy , one that would facilitate the long overdue right of Palestinians to Resistance and self-determination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine entitled Normalise Palestine , Not The Occupation .
For too long , their Press Release reminds us , the most that has been offered in regard to help for the Palestinian people has been a degree of protection .
Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine deplore the waste of time and energy resulting from the “ Trump-Netanyahu embrace ” and call instead for recognition of the State of Palestine .
They note , however , that “ since our diplomatic initiative on UN Resolution 2334 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestine.
” The Press Release also informs us about their submission of “ a briefing on Palestine to the incoming Foreign Minister , urging her to uphold the laws that governments have signed in our names .
We want our government to call for an end to the blockade and recognise the State of Palestine , to condemn the detention of children , to formulate policy that recognises Palestinians as whole people and indispensable partners in any real solution.
” The Zionist regime denies Palestinian land rights as well as their right to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wellington Palestine “ hope that Nanaia Mahuta will have the courage to ask why Aotearoa-NZ has helped to withhold such basics from the Palestinian people for so long.
” Returning to David Cumin ‘ s article , he not only refers to the Security Council Resolution 2334 as “ biased and improper ” but also dismisses the international Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions campaign ( BDS ) as “ discriminatory ” .
Whenever Israel loses the argument it demands to be exempted from conformity with accepted standards of behaviour .
New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Israel Lobby exercises pressure on governments , to the extent that in many cases successfully undermine democracy .
Take the recent French Government decision to defy a formal judgement from the European Court of Human Rights that protects the right of people to call for the boycott of Israeli products .
French President Emmanuel Macron is furious because , in a unanimous decision , the Court overturned criminal convictions against 11 Palestinian rights activists in France .
These convictions , the Court concluded , violated the European Convention on Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ordered the French Government to pay each of the activists approximately $ US8,000 in damages plus their legal costs .
Frighteningly though , the Macron Government ’ s justice ministry issued a memorandum to prosecutors last month , ordering them to continue investigating BDS activists .
The memorandum claimed the “ anti-Semitic character of a boycott call could result directly from words , gestures and writings of the accused , and can also be deduced from the context of these ” .
Last year , the German parliament voted to condemn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Israel , with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posting on Twitter : “ I hope that this decision will bring about concrete steps and I call upon other countries to adopt similar legislation.
” Tell those that accuse others of what they call ‘ anti-Semitism ’ , to be more precise .
If they really mean that a person ’ s views are anti-Jewish , then they should say so – and explain why and how .
While , in the name of Jews worldwide , the Zionist regime continues its violations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself ever further from civilised norms of behaviour , a majority of world opinion demands a complete end to injustice and discrimination .
One example of this is a call from One Democratic State Campaign .
On 23 November , the campaign invited international civil society to join in “ building an effective anti-colonial , liberation movement to create a democratic state in historic Palestine.
” Read more here and see list of notable signatories .
The world is waking up to the Zionist threat , and the movement to resist the ideology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its true purpose is being seriously challenged .
Just this week , Shlomo Sand , commenting on a Haaretz article by the Israeli historian , David Engel , advised human rights supporters to stop using the term ‘ anti-Semitism ’ , reminding us that : “ There is no such thing as a Semitic race .
There are only Semitic languages .
I am a Semite because I speak and write Hebrew .
My parents were not Semites because they spoke Yiddish.
” Haaretz refers to Professor Engel , a scholar of modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has avoided using the word ‘ antisemitism ‘ for 30 years in his articles or books .
The word has been banished from his professional lexicon , even when he is writing about the Holocaust.
” The outlawing of BDS is an assault on human rights .
Israel ’ s powerful influence and obsessive desire to control must be firmly resisted everywhere .
The IINZ article are welcome – because they reveal the weakness of Zionist argument and open the opportunity for debate , which mainstream news media silence disables .
Under cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ strategic ’ and commercial interests to be placed ahead of human rights .
We await our new Foreign Minister ‘ s response to the briefing sent to her by Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine .
Let us hope that she will affirm New Zealand ’ s adherence to the principles of Security Council Resolution 2334 and demand that Israel and its allies respect the Palestinian people and their rights under international law including , in particular , the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention .

This Sunday, 29 November, the United Nations Organisation and human rights supporters globally commemorate an annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, established in 1977. At 7pm in Auckland, the Palestinian Community of NZ and the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) will play their part, holding an event at the Western Springs Garden Community Hall, 956 Great North Road. There will be a number of speakers and it is hoped, but not yet confirmed, that our new Foreign Affairs Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, will also attend. Everyone is welcome and the occasion will also be available for live viewing.
Zionist propaganda in New Zealand
In a somewhat personalised criticism of PSNA Chair, John Minto, published on the Israel Institute of New Zealand’s website, Sheree Trotter takes particular exception John mentioning Israel’s brutal, criminal suppression of the Great March of Return protests in Gaza. She does so by quoting from a case study for the ICRC that was prepared by a student at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Its language largely reflects Israeli and Zionist lobby versions that put the blame squarely on unarmed civilian victims of superior Israeli military force. The student’s account differs strangely in tone to facts already recognised by the Academy which has acknowledged, for instance, that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip has been “catastrophic for the population”. Regarding Israel’s military Occupation of the West Bank, the Academy has also noted that: “President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel happens in a context where efforts to expand settlements in Palestinian-owned land have continued, particularly in East Jerusalem, leading to an increase in evictions of Palestinian families.”
Trotter accuses John Minto of “spouting a distorted picture of what is a complex conflict”. Towards the end of her piece, she asserts also that he had delivered a “distorted narrative about a conflict on the other side of the world . . .” That sounds rather as though she is telling New Zealand to mind its own business when it comes to Israel’s crimes against humanity. As for a “distorted narrative”, simply compare the Geneva Academy student’s version of events during the protests and the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2018 Gaza protests, then judge which is closer to the truth. Here are some excerpts from the Inquiry:
UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on 2018 Gaza protests
“The Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that during the Great March of Return, Israeli soldiers committed violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.
“More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence. The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists.
“There can be no justification for killing and injuring journalists, medics, and persons who pose no imminent threat of death or serious injury to those around them. Particularly alarming is the targeting of children and persons with disabilities.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognisable as such.
“These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
“The Commission finds that these protests were a call for help from a population in despair.
“The Israeli authorities did not respond to repeated requests by the Commission for information and access to Israel and to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Israel Institute of New Zealand
In a recent IINZ article criticising New Zealand policy towards Palestine, David Cumin expressed anger at a people he discriminately chose to call “Arab Palestinians” for daring to have “pushed for statehood through the ICC”. He also claimed that Palestinians “promoted terror in schools” and accused MFAT officials of “attempting to justify spending Kiwi taxpayer money on schools that incite violence”. An article in The New York Jewish Week offers a quite different perspective from that promoted by Cumin, quoting from what it describes as “an in-depth comparative study of Palestinian and Israeli school textbooks” entitled Palestinian Textbooks Do Not Incite Hate. The study was conducted by the Council of Religious Institutions in the Holy Land, a multi-faith body that aims to “prevent religion from being used as a source of conflict, and to promote mutual respect”. While the Israeli Government did not co-operate with the study, the Palestinian Authority did.
The irony here is that as textbook researcher Samira Alayan from the Georg Eckert Institute for the Study of Textbooks has revealed, Palestinian textbooks are severely controlled and censored, not only by Israel but also by European and American bodies that finance their production (see “Images of identity: Self and other in school text books of the Palestinian Authority”, June 2011 [PDF]). However, there is another aspect that is hidden from public view with, for example, the study skirting around the racism in Israeli schoolbooks and confining the concept of ‘incitement’ only to the side that is militarily Occupied and dominated. The Wye River Memorandum — signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 1998 — included an “explicit statement about incitement” stating that “the Palestinian side would issue a decree prohibiting all forms of incitement to violence or terror, and establishing mechanisms for acting systematically against all expressions or threats of violence or terror. This decree would be comparable to the existing Israeli legislation which deals with the same subject.” There is no such provision demanded of the Israeli Occupation regime. Professor Nurit Elhanan-Peled‘s ‘Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education’ Library of Modern Middle East Studies, 2012, reveals how, in Israeli schoolbooks, Arabs are regularly portrayed as villainous aggressors and Jews as their victims.
Cumin’s article, “Possibilities for the future of New Zealand’s approach to Israel”, referred to above is nothing but Zionist propaganda. A far more rational approach to future policy, one that would facilitate the long overdue right of Palestinians to Resistance and self-determination, has been outlined in a Press Release by Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine entitled Normalise Palestine, Not The Occupation. For too long, their Press Release reminds us, the most that has been offered in regard to help for the Palestinian people has been a degree of protection. Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine deplore the waste of time and energy resulting from the “Trump-Netanyahu embrace” and call instead for recognition of the State of Palestine. They note, however, that “since our diplomatic initiative on UN Resolution 2334, our government has fallen decidedly quiet about Palestine.” The Press Release also informs us about their submission of “a briefing on Palestine to the incoming Foreign Minister, urging her to uphold the laws that governments have signed in our names. We want our government to call for an end to the blockade and recognise the State of Palestine, to condemn the detention of children, to formulate policy that recognises Palestinians as whole people and indispensable partners in any real solution.”
The Zionist regime denies Palestinian land rights as well as their right to adequate fresh water. Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine “hope that Nanaia Mahuta will have the courage to ask why Aotearoa-NZ has helped to withhold such basics from the Palestinian people for so long.”
Israel – demanding, aloof and self-isolating
Returning to David Cumin‘s article, he not only refers to the Security Council Resolution 2334 as “biased and improper” but also dismisses the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign (BDS) as “discriminatory”. Whenever Israel loses the argument it demands to be exempted from conformity with accepted standards of behaviour. New Zealand should be on its guard and understand that the Israel Lobby exercises pressure on governments, to the extent that in many cases successfully undermines democracy. Take the recent French Government decision to defy a formal judgement from the European Court of Human Rights that protects the right of people to call for the boycott of Israeli products. French President Emmanuel Macron is furious because, in a unanimous decision, the Court overturned criminal convictions against 11 Palestinian rights activists in France. These convictions, the Court concluded, violated the European Convention on Human Rights’ guarantee of freedom of expression, and it ordered the French Government to pay each of the activists approximately $US8,000 in damages plus their legal costs. Frighteningly though, the Macron Government’s justice ministry issued a memorandum to prosecutors last month, ordering them to continue investigating BDS activists. The memorandum claimed the “anti-Semitic character of a boycott call could result directly from words, gestures and writings of the accused, and can also be deduced from the context of these”.
Last year, the German parliament voted to condemn BDS as anti-Semitic, a move welcomed by Israel, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posting on Twitter: “I hope that this decision will bring about concrete steps and I call upon other countries to adopt similar legislation.” Tell those that accuse others of what they call ‘anti-Semitism’, to be more precise. If they really mean that a person’s views are anti-Jewish, then they should say so – and explain why and how.
Palestinians and Israelis call for a single democratic state
While, in the name of Jews worldwide, the Zionist regime continues its violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and distances itself ever further from civilised norms of behaviour, a majority of world opinion demands a complete end to injustice and discrimination. One example of this is a call from One Democratic State Campaign. On 23 November, the campaign invited international civil society to join in “building an effective anti-colonial, liberation movement to create a democratic state in historic Palestine.” Read more here and see list of notable signatories.
Plain speaking and responsibility
The world is waking up to the Zionist threat, and the movement to resist the ideology’s manipulation of language to disguise its true purpose is being seriously challenged. Just this week, Shlomo Sand, commenting on a Haaretz article by the Israeli historian, David Engel, advised human rights supporters to stop using the term ‘anti-Semitism’, reminding us that: “There is no such thing as a Semitic race. There are only Semitic languages. I am a Semite because I speak and write Hebrew. My parents were not Semites because they spoke Yiddish.” Haaretz refers to Professor Engel, a scholar of modern Jewish history, noting that “he has avoided using the word ‘antisemitism‘ for 30 years in his articles or books. The word has been banished from his professional lexicon, even when he is writing about the Holocaust.”
The outlawing of BDS is an assault on human rights. Israel’s powerful influence and obsessive desire to control must be firmly resisted everywhere. The IINZ articles are welcome – because they reveal the weakness of Zionist argument and open the opportunity for debate, which mainstream news media silence disables. Under cover, politicians evade their responsibilities and allow ‘strategic’ and commercial interests to be placed ahead of human rights. We await our new Foreign Minister‘s response to the briefing sent to her by Alternative Jewish Voices and Wellington Palestine. Let us hope that she will affirm New Zealand’s adherence to the principles of Security Council Resolution 2334 and demand that Israel and its allies respect the Palestinian people and their rights under international law including, in particular, the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.


thedailyblog--2020-11-28--Why An Iranian Nuclear Scientist Was Really Just Assassinated

By now , news of the assassination of the project-head of Iran ’ s nuclear weapons effort , Mohsen Fakhrizadeh , has gone around the world .
What is less clear , however , is the identity of the perpetrators – and why they would undertake such a move .
On the surface , both elements seem obvious – the Israelis have a clear motivation for wishing to stab at Iran ’ s nuclear effort and some form for doing so in the past via targeted killings .
Something that had also been done to other nations as and when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hiring none other than Otto Skorzeny in return for a faked ‘ pardon ’ for his Nazi service , to get at German scientists working for Egypt in the 1960s ) .
And I do not disagree that Israel is the most likely suspect .
Although their actual reasoning for a strike would be somewhat different than the intuitive suggestion that this is merely about attempting to frustrate Iran ’ s nuclear capability development .
And , further , that they are unlikely to be the sole conspirator ( a contradiction in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timing of events is crucial .
We are in the dying days of the Trump Administration .
The Netanyahu-dominated government of Israel knows this – and knows that its much free-er hand in the Middle East thanks to a pliant and pliable President in Washington , is similarly likely to be facing impending restraint from the incoming Biden regime .
After all , it was the Obama Administration in which Biden served who took the radically logical step to actually endeavour to negotiate ( and successfully , it must be added ) with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruitlessly as international pariahs .
Said Administration – the Obama one , I mean – had also pointedly opposed Israel ’ s efforts at destabilizing the situation via ongoing covert escapades and assassinations .
And while it could therefore be fairly suggested that the Israelis might have chosen to ‘ get while the getting was good ’ , I think that there is something else going on here .
Something that has both had a longer-term buildup to it ; and which may very well have taken place in some form regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently seen Israel act with the Trump Administration and also off its own bat to shore up the ‘ Saudi-Israeliya ’ axis of allies amidst certain Arab states ; moves and maneuvers that have enabled an ‘ above-ground ’ rapproachment between governments that had long been working together ‘ under the table ’ , and opened the door to the greater provision of American military hardware to same .
This was evidently a long-term project which had been designed to make the region ( south of Iraq and Syria , at least ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence – and hopefully help to prevent another Syria or another Yemen ( where the Sunni-Saudi-Israeli alignment has either been stymied or is getting a severely bloody nose and looking bad whilst doing it , respectively ) .
We have also recently seen Trump bluster about starting a war with Iran – not only via his reckless attitude towards the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani towards the start of this year ( which triggered a symbolically necessary Iranian reprisal strike ) , but also following the Election .
And it is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Little more than a week after it became apparent that he had not ( immediately ) won , Trump conjured together his Vice President , Secretary of State , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , and Defence Secretary , with a view towards exploring strike options against Iran .
At the time , it seemed like a curious maneuver – one which might have presented a convenient sideshow spectacle as post-electoral shenanigans were engaged in back home , perhaps .
However , read in light of the above , this recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may suggest that instead of an overt and blustery ‘ symbolic ’ blow in the manner of the cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase in 2017 , the Trump Administration may have given the go-ahead to something different .
And much more cunning .
You see , the net impact of this most recent assassination isn ’ t really going to be much of a dent in the Iranian nuclear project .
That ’ s not what it was designed to do .
Rather , it is all about the optics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showy move ’ of a different , and a far more ‘ slow-burning ’ kind .
It is about making it far more difficult for the incoming Biden Administration to actually resume nuclear rapprochement with Tehran .
Both due to the lingering perception that the Americans may have been implicitly involved in giving the Israelis a green light for the killing , as well as the plausible retaliatory action that Iran may now engage in against whomever it is that they officially declare to have been responsible .
The Trump Administration will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not claiming credit for it , then claiming that it was a moral and just action to have occurred and offering their support to whomever it was that pulled the metaphorical trigger .
A much more tense situation between Iran and the West , between the countries on either side of the Persian Gulf , is exactly what the Israeli government dearly wishes .
They have been quite dismayed at the manner in which the Trump Administration ’ s singularly inept blustery-shouting-that-it-is- diplomacy have managed to push European Union countries to engage more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what can be sold as their ‘ lashing out ’ and bellicose shows of attempted strength that make for good propaganda for those endeavouring to cast the Iranians as frothing-at-the-mouth scary fundamentalist extremists , would be useful to them .
And would also help to support the development of acceptance amidst various Arab populations for their governments ’ already-decided rapprochement with Israel .
‘ The Enemy Of My Enemy ’ , and all that .
So , whether this was an Israeli operation or one that the Americans nudged into occurrence ( perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in Jerusalem last week ) , I think that the outgoing Trump Administration will have some small cause for celebration this week .
They have managed to secure something they have dearly desired – a likely frustration and hamstringing for the incoming Biden Administration ’ s presumed intent to re-engage with Iran .
And therefore , perhaps , Trump won ’ t have to see if he can start an overt and conventional war with Iran between now and January in order to have a lasting ‘ strike from the grave ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Presidency .
As I say – this is cunning .
It is slow burning .
The only serious question is – just how much of the Middle East may yet burn as a result of it .
Hopefully , the wisdom and restraint demonstrated by the Iranians when dealing with the deliberate provocations of the Americans shall once again come to the fore .
During the January retaliation for the murder of Major General Soleimanei , it was noted that the missile-strike was very much a symbolic one – it satisfied in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Iranian retribution to be ‘ seen to be done ’ , without actually causing sufficient damage nor casualties to the Americans to then militate a subsequent escalation from that quarter ( no doubt to the great disappointment of some ) .
Perhaps there is room for some similarly line-walking careful placement of foot so as to avoid both accelerator and landmine over the next two months as we all collectively wait for the clock to run down on the Trump Administration .
Careful , cautious , and perspicacious consideration from Iran , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think anybody else involved is nearly so keen to avoid dragging the Americans into a pointless quagmire , including various of the ( outgoing ) Americans themselves .

By now, news of the assassination of the project-head of Iran’s nuclear weapons effort, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, has gone around the world. What is less clear, however, is the identity of the perpetrators – and why they would undertake such a move.
On the surface, both elements seem obvious – the Israelis have a clear motivation for wishing to stab at Iran’s nuclear effort and some form for doing so in the past via targeted killings. Something that had also been done to other nations as and when convenient (including their rather inspired choice of hiring none other than Otto Skorzeny in return for a faked ‘pardon’ for his Nazi service, to get at German scientists working for Egypt in the 1960s).
And I do not disagree that Israel is the most likely suspect. Although their actual reasoning for a strike would be somewhat different than the intuitive suggestion that this is merely about attempting to frustrate Iran’s nuclear capability development. And, further, that they are unlikely to be the sole conspirator (a contradiction in terms).
As ever, the timing of events is crucial. We are in the dying days of the Trump Administration. The Netanyahu-dominated government of Israel knows this – and knows that its much free-er hand in the Middle East thanks to a pliant and pliable President in Washington, is similarly likely to be facing impending restraint from the incoming Biden regime. After all, it was the Obama Administration in which Biden served who took the radically logical step to actually endeavour to negotiate (and successfully, it must be added) with Tehran rather than continuing to treat them fruitlessly as international pariahs.
Said Administration – the Obama one, I mean – had also pointedly opposed Israel’s efforts at destabilizing the situation via ongoing covert escapades and assassinations. And while it could therefore be fairly suggested that the Israelis might have chosen to ‘get while the getting was good’, I think that there is something else going on here. Something that has both had a longer-term buildup to it; and which may very well have taken place in some form regardless of recent US political events.
We have recently seen Israel act with the Trump Administration and also off its own bat to shore up the ‘Saudi-Israeliya’ axis of allies amidst certain Arab states; moves and maneuvers that have enabled an ‘above-ground’ rapproachment between governments that had long been working together ‘under the table’, and opened the door to the greater provision of American military hardware to same. This was evidently a long-term project which had been designed to make the region (south of Iraq and Syria, at least) more ‘resilient’ against perceived Iranian influence – and hopefully help to prevent another Syria or another Yemen (where the Sunni-Saudi-Israeli alignment has either been stymied or is getting a severely bloody nose and looking bad whilst doing it, respectively).
We have also recently seen Trump bluster about starting a war with Iran – not only via his reckless attitude towards the assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani towards the start of this year (which triggered a symbolically necessary Iranian reprisal strike), but also following the Election. And it is that last element which is key here.
Little more than a week after it became apparent that he had not (immediately) won, Trump conjured together his Vice President, Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defence Secretary, with a view towards exploring strike options against Iran. At the time, it seemed like a curious maneuver – one which might have presented a convenient sideshow spectacle as post-electoral shenanigans were engaged in back home, perhaps.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
However, read in light of the above, this recent targeted killing of an Iranian nuclear official may suggest that instead of an overt and blustery ‘symbolic’ blow in the manner of the cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase in 2017, the Trump Administration may have given the go-ahead to something different. And much more cunning.
You see, the net impact of this most recent assassination isn’t really going to be much of a dent in the Iranian nuclear project. That’s not what it was designed to do. Rather, it is all about the optics of the thing – it is a ‘showy move’ of a different, and a far more ‘slow-burning’ kind. It is about making it far more difficult for the incoming Biden Administration to actually resume nuclear rapprochement with Tehran. Both due to the lingering perception that the Americans may have been implicitly involved in giving the Israelis a green light for the killing, as well as the plausible retaliatory action that Iran may now engage in against whomever it is that they officially declare to have been responsible. The Trump Administration will likely double down upon the action – if not claiming credit for it, then claiming that it was a moral and just action to have occurred and offering their support to whomever it was that pulled the metaphorical trigger.
A much more tense situation between Iran and the West, between the countries on either side of the Persian Gulf, is exactly what the Israeli government dearly wishes. They have been quite dismayed at the manner in which the Trump Administration’s singularly inept blustery-shouting-that-it-is- diplomacy have managed to push European Union countries to engage more positively with Iran. Provoking Iran into what can be sold as their ‘lashing out’ and bellicose shows of attempted strength that make for good propaganda for those endeavouring to cast the Iranians as frothing-at-the-mouth scary fundamentalist extremists, would be useful to them. And would also help to support the development of acceptance amidst various Arab populations for their governments’ already-decided rapprochement with Israel. ‘The Enemy Of My Enemy’, and all that.
So, whether this was an Israeli operation or one that the Americans nudged into occurrence (perhaps this is a part of why Pompeo was in Jerusalem last week), I think that the outgoing Trump Administration will have some small cause for celebration this week. They have managed to secure something they have dearly desired – a likely frustration and hamstringing for the incoming Biden Administration’s presumed intent to re-engage with Iran. And therefore, perhaps, Trump won’t have to see if he can start an overt and conventional war with Iran between now and January in order to have a lasting ‘strike from the grave’ at his soon-to-be replacement’s ambitions and Presidency.
As I say – this is cunning. It is slow burning. The only serious question is – just how much of the Middle East may yet burn as a result of it. Hopefully, the wisdom and restraint demonstrated by the Iranians when dealing with the deliberate provocations of the Americans shall once again come to the fore. During the January retaliation for the murder of Major General Soleimanei, it was noted that the missile-strike was very much a symbolic one – it satisfied in some limited sense, the visual requirement for Iranian retribution to be ‘seen to be done’, without actually causing sufficient damage nor casualties to the Americans to then militate a subsequent escalation from that quarter (no doubt to the great disappointment of some).
Perhaps there is room for some similarly line-walking careful placement of foot so as to avoid both accelerator and landmine over the next two months as we all collectively wait for the clock to run down on the Trump Administration. Careful, cautious, and perspicacious consideration from Iran, I mean. I don’t think anybody else involved is nearly so keen to avoid dragging the Americans into a pointless quagmire, including various of the (outgoing) Americans themselves.


thedailyblog--2020-11-29--Dr Liz Gordon: Reform Parliament now!

Dr Liz Gordon: Reform Parliament now!

I watched the opening of Parliament on TV , and then listened to the Māori party co-leaders discuss how their concerns were not dealt with effectively .
I noticed there was a significant amount of quite patronising racism in the response to the co-leaders , which is pretty typical .
Whenever Māori speak up from their cultural perspective , there is an unfortunate tendency to label them as ignorant , or troublemakers , or not understanding protocol or blah blah blah .
The reality is that Parliament is long overdue for some significant reform to reflect the needs and situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everyone should have been reminded of this when NZ ’ s ‘ Black Rod ’ banged on the door seeking entry .
Why does this happen ?
Because in 1642 King Charles 1 sought to arrest 5 members of the British Parliament .
So the sovereign ’ s representative is now required to bang three times on the door seeking entry , at the other end of the world .
Similarly , the Speaker of the House is required to feign reluctance to take on the role .
Why is this ?
Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was often required , in times past , to take messages between the sovereign and the Parliament .
When the messages were unwelcome , the job could become quite chancy from a health and safety viewpoint , with the odd smattering of torture and summary incarceration .
I am not opposed to a bit of pageantry , a bit of dressing up and play-acting , a nice dramatic turn .
Outside of the Marae , New Zealand has very little of this , and I would like to see more , not less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards a quarter of the way into the 21st century , and it is well beyond time to ditch the outdated ceremonies of the British colonists , and settle on an approach that more effectively meets our needs .
James Shaw raised the question of the compulsory wearing of ties in the House .
This opens up the issue of dress codes per se .
Does our Parliament need to be so uniform , like an English boarding school ?
Could our men wear a wider range of dress options ?
Could we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course we could !
All of this is merely throat clearing for the bigger question : is our Parliament fit for purpose ?
While the focus is on debates and the words in Hansard , most of the work goes on behind the scenes , in Select Committees and the like .
For Ministers , most of the policy work is dealt with in Cabinet meetings under conditions of significant secrecy .
The New Zealand public is not supposed to know about the content of these deliberations , just the outcomes .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model might be forced on government ’ s under an adversarial system , but this is not the only way to organise the political world .
While the debating chamber is crucial for law-making , the set-piece debates are dull and formalistic .
There is virtually no scope for authentic interventions of the kind that the Māori Party MPs attempted to achieve .
In the MMP Parliament , every speaking moment is shared out between parties based on their numbers , like a giant cake cut unevenly to reflect the size of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion about what is on MPs minds are Parliamentary Questions and Private Members Bills .
The former are completely captured by the oppositional political process .
The rules of PQs are ( a ) you must already know the answer to the question you are asking , and ( b ) your role is to either embarrass the government or be its patsy , helping extol the virtues of a ministerial announcement , or sometimes to counter-attack the opposition .
As we have seen with the End of Life Bill , Private Members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
Most end up in the graveyard of disappointment , however .
Many are simply political acts to highlight work that the government is not achieving .
There is a small amount of opportunity for MPs to have their say , most poignantly in the ‘ personal statement ’ .
These are highly bound by rules ( as one might imagine ) and usually seek to mitigate some recent behaviour .
They usually , but not always , herald the end of a career .
It has been a long time since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Parliament runs .
Is it fit for purpose in the modern age ?
Does it truly reflect a contest of ideas , or is it just a formalised testosterone fest for personal and political dominance ?
Can the diversity of Parliament truly be reflected in the approach to the work that is done therein ?
What might a parliament look like if we designed it today , rather than back then ?
Would ‘ Standing Orders , ’ that regulate every aspect of what goes on , look the same if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fractious and divided institution even agree on whether tie-wearing should be compulsory , let alone some fundamental reforms to ensure its own relevance for the future ?
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

I watched the opening of Parliament on TV, and then listened to the Māori party co-leaders discuss how their concerns were not dealt with effectively. I noticed there was a significant amount of quite patronising racism in the response to the co-leaders, which is pretty typical. Whenever Māori speak up from their cultural perspective, there is an unfortunate tendency to label them as ignorant, or troublemakers, or not understanding protocol or blah blah blah.
The reality is that Parliament is long overdue for some significant reform to reflect the needs and situation of an increasingly diverse New Zealand. Everyone should have been reminded of this when NZ’s ‘Black Rod’ banged on the door seeking entry. Why does this happen? Because in 1642 King Charles 1 sought to arrest 5 members of the British Parliament. So the sovereign’s representative is now required to bang three times on the door seeking entry, at the other end of the world.
Similarly, the Speaker of the House is required to feign reluctance to take on the role. Why is this? Because, the Speaker of the British Parliament was often required, in times past, to take messages between the sovereign and the Parliament. When the messages were unwelcome, the job could become quite chancy from a health and safety viewpoint, with the odd smattering of torture and summary incarceration.
I am not opposed to a bit of pageantry, a bit of dressing up and play-acting, a nice dramatic turn. Outside of the Marae, New Zealand has very little of this, and I would like to see more, not less.
But really, we are getting towards a quarter of the way into the 21st century, and it is well beyond time to ditch the outdated ceremonies of the British colonists, and settle on an approach that more effectively meets our needs.
James Shaw raised the question of the compulsory wearing of ties in the House. This opens up the issue of dress codes per se. Does our Parliament need to be so uniform, like an English boarding school? Could our men wear a wider range of dress options? Could we dress a little more diversely? Of course we could!
All of this is merely throat clearing for the bigger question: is our Parliament fit for purpose? While the focus is on debates and the words in Hansard, most of the work goes on behind the scenes, in Select Committees and the like.
For Ministers, most of the policy work is dealt with in Cabinet meetings under conditions of significant secrecy. The New Zealand public is not supposed to know about the content of these deliberations, just the outcomes. Not very inclusive is it? Such a model might be forced on government’s under an adversarial system, but this is not the only way to organise the political world.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
While the debating chamber is crucial for law-making, the set-piece debates are dull and formalistic. There is virtually no scope for authentic interventions of the kind that the Māori Party MPs attempted to achieve. In the MMP Parliament, every speaking moment is shared out between parties based on their numbers, like a giant cake cut unevenly to reflect the size of the recipient.
The only real opportunities for discussion about what is on MPs minds are Parliamentary Questions and Private Members Bills. The former are completely captured by the oppositional political process. The rules of PQs are (a) you must already know the answer to the question you are asking, and (b) your role is to either embarrass the government or be its patsy, helping extol the virtues of a ministerial announcement, or sometimes to counter-attack the opposition.
As we have seen with the End of Life Bill, Private Members bills can be powerful and lead to change. Most end up in the graveyard of disappointment, however. Many are simply political acts to highlight work that the government is not achieving.
There is a small amount of opportunity for MPs to have their say, most poignantly in the ‘personal statement’. These are highly bound by rules (as one might imagine) and usually seek to mitigate some recent behaviour. They usually, but not always, herald the end of a career.
It has been a long time since fundamental questions have been asked about how our Parliament runs. Is it fit for purpose in the modern age? Does it truly reflect a contest of ideas, or is it just a formalised testosterone fest for personal and political dominance? Can the diversity of Parliament truly be reflected in the approach to the work that is done therein?
What might a parliament look like if we designed it today, rather than back then? Would ‘Standing Orders,’ that regulate every aspect of what goes on, look the same if we started from scratch?
Finally, can that fractious and divided institution even agree on whether tie-wearing should be compulsory, let alone some fundamental reforms to ensure its own relevance for the future?
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-11-30--To Apologise For Your Country’s History, Is To Admit You Do Not Understand It.

THE DECISION BY STUFF to publish an all-purpose mea culpa for its racism towards Maori will be regretted .
That regret will be fuelled in part by future generations ’ acute embarrassment at the simplistic anachronisms which constitute the apologists ’ central “ argument ” .
Mostly , however , it will be fuelled by the effects of the highly racialised backlash it is bound to provoke .
It is clear that a certain privileged layer of New Zealand society has learned nothing from the recent political convulsions besetting both the United Kingdom and the United States .
Spit upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your “ deplorables ” and – eventually – they will spit back .
Let us deal with the anachronisms first .
The word itself simply means : “ a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement , especially a juxtaposition of persons , events , objects , language terms and customs from different time periods.
” To judge the actions of historical actors by the prevailing moral precepts of the present is not only philosophically impermissible , but it also betrays the writer ’ s fundamental ignorance of the history he is purporting to condemn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Dominion , The Evening Post , The Taranaki Herald and The Waikato Times ; the editors they appointed ; and the journalists they hired ; were all children of their times .
They were living in a colony of the British Empire and in their writing they evinced the beliefs and values of what historians have dubbed “ The Age of Imperialism ” .
The conquest of other peoples ’ lands , and the ruthless dismantling of cultures that inevitably followed , was justified by the imperialists ’ unshakeable conviction that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet lay at the very heart of human “ progress ” .
The corollary to this belief in Western superiority was the notion that any resistance on the part of those the imperialist poet par excellence , Rudyard Kipling , called “ lesser breeds without the law ” was an unacceptable impediment to progress that must , at all costs , be crushed .
Which is not to say that these imperialist beliefs were accepted uncritically by everyone .
There were contemporaries of the men who founded New Zealand ’ s colonial press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hierarchies proclaimed by the science of the day , nevertheless recognised the theft of other people ’ s property when they saw it – and weren ’ t afraid to say so .
If the white races were so self-evidently superior to the rest of humanity , these critics argued , then surely they were honour-bound to uphold the core civilisational values of which they were so inordinately proud ?
Promises , freely given , must be kept .
Rights universally shared must be universally acknowledged .
Equality , once proclaimed , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this temperament – a tiny minority of the settler population – who felt moved to write to those same colonial newspapers condemning with considerable force the destruction of Parihaka and the detention without trial of the settlement ’ s leaders .
It is also a fact that the colonial newspapers printed their letters .
Proof , one might think , that the Pakeha New Zealanders of 140 years ago were not all the slavering racist monsters portrayed by Stuff ’ s current crop of anachronistic moralisers .
Which is not to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people still alive today , those racial hierarchies were upheld as scientific truths .
Not even the unqualified evil of the Holocaust and the eugenicist murder of innocents by Nazi doctors in the 1930s and 40s , was enough to shake the white supremacist prejudices of the British , French , Dutch and Portuguese imperialists who attempted to pick up where they left off before the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 .
It took the breaking of the imperialists ’ grip in India , Africa , Indo-China and Indonesia – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indonesians – bolstered by the scholarship of post-Holocaust anthropologists , historians and political philosophers , to upend finally the racial hierarchies that had justified white supremacy for upwards of four centuries .
That , and the fight for civil rights in the belly of the American beast that quickened radically the debate over the place of race in the development of the United States – and the whole of the “ Western World ” .
It was not an easy fight .
Ideas that have , generation after generation , been ingrained in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , taught in school textbooks , and articulated forcefully by teachers , preachers , politicians and journalists of every stripe , are extremely hard to kill .
All the more so when the identity of those to whom they have been transmitted is bound up inextricably with the pride and self-confidence they communicate , and the power they purport to guarantee .
The simple idea that “ The West is the Best ” is not contradicted – or apologised for – without unleashing resentments and hatreds of punishing force .
Reading the various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it becomes clear very quickly that the writers possess not the slightest insight or empathy for the settler society they condemn ; nor understanding of the 150 years of “ racist ” journalism they apologise for .
What , one is moved to wonder , do they see when they look upon the works of their ancestors ?
The roads and the railways ?
The public buildings ?
The farms and factories ?
The family histories of struggle , disappointment and ultimate success ?
The sacrifice of tens-of-thousands of young men in wars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a skirmish .
A few years ago , I recall describing to an academic friend from Turkey the “ battle ” of Rangiaowhia , and explaining the discrepancy between the accounts of Pakeha and Maori historians as to the number killed .
Was it twelve or seventeen ?
“ Thousand ?
” , my companion asked , confused .
“ No , no , ” I replied , embarrassed , “ just twelve or seventeen.
” She shook her head in quiet disbelief .
To apologise for one ’ s history is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek either restitution or retribution – or , maybe , both .
The problem is , that what was taken by a combination of force and trickery is unlikely to be reclaimed by anything else .
The children of the settlers who built “ New Zealand ” on the body of “ Aotearoa ” , understand in that special place known to all human-beings who love their homeland , that the apologies being offered by these radical journalists ( who clearly despise everything “ New Zealand ” stands for ) are a warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some of these Pakeha will reluctantly abandon their country .
Some will retreat deeper into what is still its racist heartland .
And some will struggle to preserve the nation they have grown up in .
A nation whose true history is one of Maori and Pakeha finding more and more to be proud of in the way each ethnicity has adapted to the presence of the other .
In the course of that history many apologies have been earned , and some have been given , but not , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historical forces too vast for blame , and too permanent for guilt .

THE DECISION BY STUFF to publish an all-purpose mea culpa for its racism towards Maori will be regretted. That regret will be fuelled in part by future generations’ acute embarrassment at the simplistic anachronisms which constitute the apologists’ central “argument”. Mostly, however, it will be fuelled by the effects of the highly racialised backlash it is bound to provoke. It is clear that a certain privileged layer of New Zealand society has learned nothing from the recent political convulsions besetting both the United Kingdom and the United States. Spit upon the most cherished beliefs and achievements of your “deplorables” and – eventually – they will spit back.
Let us deal with the anachronisms first. The word itself simply means: “a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of persons, events, objects, language terms and customs from different time periods.” To judge the actions of historical actors by the prevailing moral precepts of the present is not only philosophically impermissible, but it also betrays the writer’s fundamental ignorance of the history he is purporting to condemn.
The founders of The Press, The Dominion, The Evening Post, The Taranaki Herald and The Waikato Times; the editors they appointed; and the journalists they hired; were all children of their times. They were living in a colony of the British Empire and in their writing they evinced the beliefs and values of what historians have dubbed “The Age of Imperialism”.
The conquest of other peoples’ lands, and the ruthless dismantling of cultures that inevitably followed, was justified by the imperialists’ unshakeable conviction that the steady advance of Western Civilisation across the planet lay at the very heart of human “progress”. The corollary to this belief in Western superiority was the notion that any resistance on the part of those the imperialist poet par excellence, Rudyard Kipling, called “lesser breeds without the law” was an unacceptable impediment to progress that must, at all costs, be crushed.
Which is not to say that these imperialist beliefs were accepted uncritically by everyone. There were contemporaries of the men who founded New Zealand’s colonial press who, while undoubtedly accepting the racial hierarchies proclaimed by the science of the day, nevertheless recognised the theft of other people’s property when they saw it – and weren’t afraid to say so.
If the white races were so self-evidently superior to the rest of humanity, these critics argued, then surely they were honour-bound to uphold the core civilisational values of which they were so inordinately proud? Promises, freely given, must be kept. Rights universally shared must be universally acknowledged. Equality, once proclaimed, cannot be rescinded. It was people of this temperament – a tiny minority of the settler population – who felt moved to write to those same colonial newspapers condemning with considerable force the destruction of Parihaka and the detention without trial of the settlement’s leaders.
It is also a fact that the colonial newspapers printed their letters. Proof, one might think, that the Pakeha New Zealanders of 140 years ago were not all the slavering racist monsters portrayed by Stuff’s current crop of anachronistic moralisers.
Which is not to say that right up until the childhoods of people still alive today, those racial hierarchies were upheld as scientific truths. Not even the unqualified evil of the Holocaust and the eugenicist murder of innocents by Nazi doctors in the 1930s and 40s, was enough to shake the white supremacist prejudices of the British, French, Dutch and Portuguese imperialists who attempted to pick up where they left off before the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It took the breaking of the imperialists’ grip in India, Africa, Indo-China and Indonesia – by Indians, Africans, Indo-Chinese and Indonesians – bolstered by the scholarship of post-Holocaust anthropologists, historians and political philosophers, to upend finally the racial hierarchies that had justified white supremacy for upwards of four centuries. That, and the fight for civil rights in the belly of the American beast that quickened radically the debate over the place of race in the development of the United States – and the whole of the “Western World”.
It was not an easy fight. Ideas that have, generation after generation, been ingrained in the minds of children by their parents, taught in school textbooks, and articulated forcefully by teachers, preachers, politicians and journalists of every stripe, are extremely hard to kill. All the more so when the identity of those to whom they have been transmitted is bound up inextricably with the pride and self-confidence they communicate, and the power they purport to guarantee. The simple idea that “The West is the Best” is not contradicted – or apologised for – without unleashing resentments and hatreds of punishing force.
Reading the various essays published in the Stuff newspapers, it becomes clear very quickly that the writers possess not the slightest insight or empathy for the settler society they condemn; nor understanding of the 150 years of “racist” journalism they apologise for. What, one is moved to wonder, do they see when they look upon the works of their ancestors? The roads and the railways? The public buildings? The farms and factories? The family histories of struggle, disappointment and ultimate success? The sacrifice of tens-of-thousands of young men in wars whose casualty-lists reduce the New Zealand Wars to a skirmish.
A few years ago, I recall describing to an academic friend from Turkey the “battle” of Rangiaowhia, and explaining the discrepancy between the accounts of Pakeha and Maori historians as to the number killed. Was it twelve or seventeen? “Thousand?”, my companion asked, confused. “No, no,” I replied, embarrassed, “just twelve or seventeen.” She shook her head in quiet disbelief.
To apologise for one’s history is to invite those wronged by it to seek either restitution or retribution – or, maybe, both. The problem is, that what was taken by a combination of force and trickery is unlikely to be reclaimed by anything else. The children of the settlers who built “New Zealand” on the body of “Aotearoa”, understand in that special place known to all human-beings who love their homeland, that the apologies being offered by these radical journalists (who clearly despise everything “New Zealand” stands for) are a warning of deep and tragic upheavals to come.
Some of these Pakeha will reluctantly abandon their country. Some will retreat deeper into what is still its racist heartland. And some will struggle to preserve the nation they have grown up in. A nation whose true history is one of Maori and Pakeha finding more and more to be proud of in the way each ethnicity has adapted to the presence of the other. In the course of that history many apologies have been earned, and some have been given, but not, in the end, for being caught up in historical forces too vast for blame, and too permanent for guilt.