>> ^ponceleon:

That's meori right?


Maori, yes

Conquest is a bit of a strange beast. On one hand you can extrapolate Sagemind's argument and say that we should respect the wishes of the existing indigenous population. But then on the other, what if another population of humans had existed before the Native Indians, shouldn't it be their land because they were there first?

That was the case in NZ, the country was colonized by the British and a great deal of the native land was taken for the Commonwealth. However the Maori's took a portion of NZ (the Chattham Islands) from an earlier tribe, the Moriori's - by pretty much butchering them, and keeping the prisoners captive and disallowing them to mate with each other so the race has dwindled out.

Was it ok for the Maori's to do that at the time because they didn't have the in depth written philosophy of ethics and morality that is available to us today. Is it worse that the European-Americans do this to the Indian tribes now that we have a better understanding of right and wrong available to us?

I know what seems right to me, but examining this argument in the context of history really muddies things up a lot.

As an example of why I don't think John (Fire) Lame Deer's argument can be used at face value is that while the native Americans may have had a fantastic and peaceful lifestyle a lot of the time, they killed and scalped their enemies and also appeared to have a really low life expectancy. Also, would the Native American's have done the same to Europeans if the roles were reversed? There were hundreds of Native American tribes, should they all be considered equally?

To remedy the destruction of their way of life what should be done? Should all Europeans leave America, (and every settler in every country for that matter). This is the only thing that would begin to give them complete autonomy the way they used to have it. Should we say "what's done is done" and try to make better decisions moving forward?

different angle: http://videosift.com/video/Flash-Mob-NZ-style-a-flash-Maori-Haka

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

>> ^Gabe_b:

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.

The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.
As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.


Yeah, eating brains is double-plus bad. Good way to make your own tasty brainmeats melt out of your ears.

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.


The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.

As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.

So in countries like NZ and Australia (where I'm from) - if we don't like the two big parties we vote for an alternative, like the greens. For example in New Zealand they have 7 parties with a share of the power and 7 native (Maori) electorates as well, so I think it keeps the larger parties somewhat honest (note that I said somewhat!).

In America from what I understand, the two party system is not enforced by law, how difficult is it for smaller parties to get a share of the power? Surely the decades upon decades of the crap you have put up with from those in power must get upsetting, or are too many people too brainwashed at this point by the vast media campaigns?

It just seems to me, that there is a silent acceptance by a lot of people over there that if one party (i.e. the Dems) are doing bad, they have no option but to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of looking for a real solution.

I care because this bullcrap trickles down to us, we get stuck fighting in the same wars, we face the same obesity problems now, we have enough of our own problems already, we don't want these extra ones. Not that I can say we have been perfect, we come from a history where we drank tea and killed the natives while singing god save the queen.

I think it would be more accurate to say that those countries are doing well in spite of the colonization. Also, it depends who you're talking about in those countries... Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada, Maori in New Zealand, and Aborigines in Australia all had their cultures completely or nearly completely destroyed by colonization. A lot of those populations still live in poverty or are marginalized. I doubt they'd share your opinion about colonization's benefits.

>> ^rychan:

Well, to be fair, many ex-colonies are in fantastic shape. Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have very high standards of living. India and South Africa seem to be in reasonable shape, with respect to their neighbors, at least. I'm sure historians have done better comparisons of colonized versus un-colonized nations. I would bet that colonization is a long term win. I'm not saying that morally justifies it, though.

Ergh, New Zealand /facepalm.
I've been living overseas for about 4 years now and hearing that accent it's jarring. Do I really sound like that? ick.
A community warden is a guy with about the authority of a security guard, but employed by the local Maori tribe (iwi) to keep things on the streets amicable and hopefully keep kids from doing things that are going to end the up in court. It's a bit odd, but also quite a nice system.
The guy looked like a bogan racer piece of poop, and I'd be reluctant to think he wasn't to blame.

No, a bunch of executives did. A bunch of executives do not represent a company, the shareholders do. Unless you have evidence that a majority of the shareholders endorsed the commercial then you can assume any more than what I stated.

You also have no evidence they used a racial stereotype intentionally. I had never heard of this stereotype until I came across it on VideoSift.

I'm not aware of your example but what you're describing is racist. If it was designed to entertain white people at the expense of mocking black people as a racial group then it was racist.
>> ^longde:
I think this is a valiant effort to rationalize something that is cut and dry. KFC did endorse this commercial (obviously, since it's their ad); and the aussie ad team did intentionally use a racist stereotype to sell chicken.
And I disagree that intent is at the core of what makes something racist. The sambo stories are offensive to blacks, but when they were produced, the intent was to entertain whites, not to offend blacks. They didn't care what black thought.
>> ^RedSky:
I think the notion of racism needs to be brought back to the core.
It's not racist unless it's purposely meant to be offensive to a particular racial background. It's clear that no company, least of all a fast food chicken company, would walk off a cliff willingly like this and put on an intentionally racist ad.
At worst it was produced by a bunch of employees that want to play up on a racial stereotype but was in no way endorsed or acknowledged by KFC. At best, and to me most likely, the ad was produced by an Australian marketing team unaware of the stereotype. Cenk to me seems correct, they're not rowdy, they looked like they were generally having a good time at the game. As for the whole 'awkward situation' phrasing relating to being surrounded by a bunch of black people, well yes it's a fact that even now people from different racial backgrounds tend to have more trouble getting along. There's no harm is stating that evolution has made us innately mistrustful of those that look different to us, there's nothing offensive about admitting that.
Point is, regardless of which it is, it's overblown and diverts attention away from actual examples of racial hate.



It comes down to how you define it, and yes I agree that ignorance with no hateful or prejudiced intent can be harmful but I wouldn't think of it as racism. The point where you draw the line is definitely fine though. Being wilful ignorance as a form of denying your prejudiced views is not the same as simply being unintentionally offensive. Being culturally acceptable is also of course not a defence either. Jokes about Aborigines are common place around here unfortunately, although I can definitely say I've heard less of them since I left high school.

It also doesn't help that it's virtually impossible to separate the two. We will never really know if the people who made this ad were purely ignorant or racist. Looking from the point of view of a minority I can see that perhaps past experience would gravitate you towards assuming the latter but I think it's an important distinction to make.

>> ^Throbbin:
RedSky - racism doesn't have to be intentional to qualify as racism. Ignorant/inadvertent racism is just as harmful, maybe even more harmful than intentional (hateful) racism. At least with hateful racism it's easy to isolate, identify, and mock/ridicule the racists. When it's ignorant/unintended racism it's tacitly accepted by society, and thus harder to isolate and rectify.
I don't buy the 'Australia doesn't have the same stereotypes of black people that Americans do' line. Aussies consume just as much American media as Canadians do, and all of the stereotypes about black people I encountered came from American media. In general, I have heard that Australia is an exceptionally racist place - I heard this firsthand from Aborigines (and Maori from NZ). I have even even heard it from 'white Aussies' themselves. One Aussie was trying to congratulate me (us? as in Inuit) for having our shit together much more than the good for nothing Aborigines down under. I shit you not.

RedSky - racism doesn't have to be intentional to qualify as racism. Ignorant/inadvertent racism is just as harmful, maybe even more harmful than intentional (hateful) racism. At least with hateful racism it's easy to isolate, identify, and mock/ridicule the racists. When it's ignorant/unintended racism it's tacitly accepted by society, and thus harder to isolate and rectify.

I don't buy the 'Australia doesn't have the same stereotypes of black people that Americans do' line. Aussies consume just as much American media as Canadians do, and all of the stereotypes about black people I encountered came from American media. In general, I have heard that Australia is an exceptionally racist place - I heard this firsthand from Aborigines (and Maori from NZ). I have even even heard it from 'white Aussies' themselves. One Aussie was trying to congratulate me (us? as in Inuit) for having our shit together much more than the good for nothing Aborigines down under. I shit you not.

I'm a Kiwi living in Australia.

In reply to this comment by Captain_Caveman:
In reply to this comment by Maze:
This is life for more kiwi's than you might realise.

Also, Maori, not Mauri. The Maori language pronounces vowels slightly differently.

Is ye kiwi? Or nai?

I saw this movie when I lived in hawaii, it's an awesome movie. other scences show the better side of the maori culture. It's worth watching again, thanks for the post!

In reply to this comment by Maze:
This is life for more kiwi's than you might realise.

Also, Maori, not Mauri. The Maori language pronounces vowels slightly differently.

Is ye kiwi? Or nai?