Maori have a legend that says that sandflies were made because humans simply stood around doing no work, but instead stared at the amazing landscapes of Fiordland. When some friends and I arrived at the DOC campsite at Lake Paringa, we also stood there, enchanted, maybe 700 or 800 years after them. We had just driven from Central Otago through the Haast Pass. Two completely different landscapes: one dry, agricultural; the other luscious, green and remote. No one lives in the 90 km stretch between Matarora and Haast. Everyone one sees is holding a camara, or is gawping, or is driving slowly. Only tourists own this land, it is public and everyone's. We arrived at Lake Paringa at sun-set. There were Kaka and Kea flying overhead, Kereru in the bush. We were staring at them, there were the hills around us reflected in the waters we had waded into knee-deep. And then there were the sandflies. We hadn't noticed them but they had noticed us. All four of us seemed to be the most attractive meal they'd seen in their lives. Everyone else in the site looked oblivious to the fact that there were these creatures absolutely everywhere. They came down on us for quick pit-stops, twelve or thirteen at a time, giving us no time to concentrate fully on setting up our tents or cooking. Or taking photos even.
When our meals had been made we were already starting to lose it. We were walking around in circles with our plates and teas in one hand, fork in the other. We couldn't stop or they'd devour us. The fellow campsite users looked and laughed. After a while we did too: four young adults walking around waving their forks at an invisible foe, shaking their heads and bursting into jumps or skips, swearing... Surely we were mad? We applied suncream, deodorant and burning tea to alleviate the bites until finally we got given some repellant.
Magic.
At last they were gone! We could stretch out our hands and they would fly away. Albeit our bites were itchy and painful. We decided to hide in our tents. They were in there too. I was killing them, clapping, and soon their blood, or ours, was all over the tent. They were everywhere. They were also trapped between the inner and outer layer of our tent. Their flying pounded over us like the rain that tends to hit these regions.
I'll quickly pause. You may think this campsite was hell but it isn't. The mountains and the lake and the birds and the trees were spectacular. There were Kaka, Kiwi,Kea and Kereru. All are extremely rare yet there they were, in one place!
The next day we were forced to skip breakfast and pack up quickly: the sandflies were out again. As we were throwing things into the car I told my friend that he shouldn't "doubt in killing all the sandflies while we drive". "Can we not push them out the window?" he answered. Out of the window? Push them? Save them? These nasty little vampires!? No - I thought. He's a vegetarian and believes that everything has a right to life. I understand what vegetarians are doing. I understand that it is ethically quite brutal to kill. Where do we draw lines though? Can we compare animals to insects? He would say that any creature that can think, any creature that is independant has the right to life. I don't think it is the same to kill a sandfly than it is to kill a cow. I know a cow pains when we hurt it, but does an insect? Does it now what it is to live and die?
It knows it lives. It is what it does. It knows it is there and what it has to do.
Push it out of the window!? By doing that aren't we just giving it the opportunity to attack someone else? Therefore, isn't it selfish to do so? Isn't it altruistic to actually kill it, kill one and ten die. We are stopping the future generations from suffering, albeit ridiculous suffering. I mean, wasn't it seen as a good thing when the US, Spain, Italy and so many other countries eradicated malaria? This wasn't done by pushing the mosquitos out of the country.
There is a difference between killing a fly and killing a human, or a cow. At least I think there is.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
So someone has realized that the West cannot defeat extremism.
General Sir David Richards a few days ago told a BBC reporter that the West wouldn't be able to defeat Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That they would pose a threat to Britain for another thirty years at least... While alas(!) I celebrate that someone on the right has at last discovered something said by many around 2003-4, he has not yet reached the right conclusion. It may be another 7 years for that.
We may ask ourselves then, why are we staying in Afghanistan if they cannot be defeated? Surely it is just a mass grave of the unknown which we are helping fill? Yes it is. But he thinks that it is possible to 'contain' Al-Qaeda. Like we have [not] been doing since the beginning! What he is saying is that we should continue killing and displacing millions, making sure they have no access to education, health care or food and keeping women in the strangling clasps of men. What we are containing is their access to development and democracy. Because we know what is best for them, we are the West, a haven.
I'm a big fan of what is rational, so I think I'm a big fan of terrorism. While I don't support it and I think it will only make situations worse, I more than understand where it comes from. For the West it is rational to search half the world, destroying everything and everyone in the way, for one man. However we think it is irrational for people to resort to violence to protect their livelihoods and families and everything they've known. We see them as uneducated, but if we are the educated then maybe we should fall back into the world of Rousseau's noble savage, where civilization doesn't exist, where there are no worries, where we are free. If education is what we have and rationality guides the thinking processes of our leaders, maybe we should be more like the Afghanis instead of forcing them to accept what we impose.
Johann Hari described the terrorist situation very well. He says that the U.S. is creating far more jihadis than they are killing. He flips the situation around: imagine you are leading your normal life in whichever Western city and then, suddenly, your house gets bombed, and that of your neighbour and that of your mother. Family and friends are dieing all around you. You are a normal person, your family is normal and your friends are normal; there is no reason for the killings. Then someone comes to you under a name like 'Army of the People' says that this country called, say, Bangladesh is responsible for the bombings. Moreover, they (the AoftheP) have acquired the technology to actively fight against these people. With nothing left: no job, no wife, no kids, no food, but lots of frustration; isn't it fair to say that many would join this group? To prevent further killings, for your country? I'm not a patriot, but it is rational for people to protect that which is closest to them. It makes sense for people to feel close to people who are like them. It is a survival instinct. General Richards is right when he says that we will not defeat terrorism, but he is wrong when he says we will contain the ideology if we pursue the methods hitherto pursued.
The problem is that the people who have power in our countries are not all that concerned about the well-being of a few Muslims. Why? Because the threats from Al-Qaeda will always be directed to them. They are the exploiters of their countries as well as ours. The rich aren't all that concerned with us either. They don't care about laws. They only care about their own security, and this is when it is important [for the rest] to abide the law. They are allowed to bomb people as long as they are not bombed, if they are you are guaranteed to end up in jail with electrodes in your skin.
I read a fair while ago that the Taliban wouldn't put down their weapons until America and the rest leave the country. This is unacceptable to the West, because then we won't have the opportunity to control their resources, plunder their crops or spend billions on arms. However it is only logical. There are so many opportunities for Afghanistan, they can only start being drawn out when they become free after 40 years of war.
Only peace can create peace.
We may ask ourselves then, why are we staying in Afghanistan if they cannot be defeated? Surely it is just a mass grave of the unknown which we are helping fill? Yes it is. But he thinks that it is possible to 'contain' Al-Qaeda. Like we have [not] been doing since the beginning! What he is saying is that we should continue killing and displacing millions, making sure they have no access to education, health care or food and keeping women in the strangling clasps of men. What we are containing is their access to development and democracy. Because we know what is best for them, we are the West, a haven.
I'm a big fan of what is rational, so I think I'm a big fan of terrorism. While I don't support it and I think it will only make situations worse, I more than understand where it comes from. For the West it is rational to search half the world, destroying everything and everyone in the way, for one man. However we think it is irrational for people to resort to violence to protect their livelihoods and families and everything they've known. We see them as uneducated, but if we are the educated then maybe we should fall back into the world of Rousseau's noble savage, where civilization doesn't exist, where there are no worries, where we are free. If education is what we have and rationality guides the thinking processes of our leaders, maybe we should be more like the Afghanis instead of forcing them to accept what we impose.
Johann Hari described the terrorist situation very well. He says that the U.S. is creating far more jihadis than they are killing. He flips the situation around: imagine you are leading your normal life in whichever Western city and then, suddenly, your house gets bombed, and that of your neighbour and that of your mother. Family and friends are dieing all around you. You are a normal person, your family is normal and your friends are normal; there is no reason for the killings. Then someone comes to you under a name like 'Army of the People' says that this country called, say, Bangladesh is responsible for the bombings. Moreover, they (the AoftheP) have acquired the technology to actively fight against these people. With nothing left: no job, no wife, no kids, no food, but lots of frustration; isn't it fair to say that many would join this group? To prevent further killings, for your country? I'm not a patriot, but it is rational for people to protect that which is closest to them. It makes sense for people to feel close to people who are like them. It is a survival instinct. General Richards is right when he says that we will not defeat terrorism, but he is wrong when he says we will contain the ideology if we pursue the methods hitherto pursued.
The problem is that the people who have power in our countries are not all that concerned about the well-being of a few Muslims. Why? Because the threats from Al-Qaeda will always be directed to them. They are the exploiters of their countries as well as ours. The rich aren't all that concerned with us either. They don't care about laws. They only care about their own security, and this is when it is important [for the rest] to abide the law. They are allowed to bomb people as long as they are not bombed, if they are you are guaranteed to end up in jail with electrodes in your skin.
I read a fair while ago that the Taliban wouldn't put down their weapons until America and the rest leave the country. This is unacceptable to the West, because then we won't have the opportunity to control their resources, plunder their crops or spend billions on arms. However it is only logical. There are so many opportunities for Afghanistan, they can only start being drawn out when they become free after 40 years of war.
Only peace can create peace.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Whenua - land
I had a conversation a few weeks ago that went something like this:
"I hate possums! They're a pest. They eat our native birds and we should get rid of them all!"
"Well... I know some people who would say the same about you..."
Touche.
Of course the conversation was much more than just that. But it's true. The last statement reflects the way many Maori feel about white people. I had to regret my words. We brought the possums in, it is our fault that the native wildlife is getting destroyed. It is also our fault that the native culture, language and peoples were destroyed so many years ago. Many politicians and those in government would like us to believe that this land is ours. After all we signed a treaty didn't we? But when they say 'ours' who do they mean? The treaty was left forgotten in a basement, water-ridden and being eaten by rats for thirty years.
This is also the situation endured by Maori. For a while the white man thought Maori would die out, Hoorah they said: "Taking all things into consideration, the disappearance of the race is scarcely subject for much regret. They axe dying out in a quick, easy way, and are being supplanted by a superior race." This a statement by a so-called Dr. Newman in 1881, in 1884 Sir Walter Buller only predicted twenty more years for the Maori race. It is no surprise then that the treaty was 'lost'.
Still now we hear comments saying that our arrival to New Zealand made things better. They were savages, cannibals. We gave them technology, education... We also destroyed the education they had, we destroyed their culture, we gave them a white god, we gave them drugs and alcohol.
The Maori situation still hasn't changed. While we boast that the indigenous peoples of New Zealand have a brighter future than any other indigenous people in the world thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi: a) this is something to mourn rather than celebrate. b) this doesn't mean the situation for Maori is 'good' c) the Treaty of Waitangi was only enshrined as a national document [and isn't a very good one] in 1975 with the Waitangi Tribunal.
Maori still now are much more likely to suffer from health problems, unemployment and poverty when compared to your average Pakeha. On the other hand, the Waitangi tribunal was set up after Maori started to protest for their rights to be equal [or maybe superior] to the white man, for the acceptance of their culture and to solve the disputes the white man created when he stole Maori land. Even though the protest movement died down, the situation isn't any better.
It is difficult to give a say on issues of race. It is easy for me to say that we should all have equal rights, because at the end of the day this is also what is best for me: an educated white boy. I personally think it'd be dumb to ask for a Maori only society, I can see where the desire comes from, but this would not create an equal society by definition, it would be a Maori and a Pakeha society, two separate ones, like Apartheid South Africa. At the same time society has to recognize that Maori start off handicapped because of their skin. They are more likely to fall into broken households where the parents haven't had a good access to education, thus bringing them into crime.
The first thing to do would be to recognize that this land is theirs, symbolically. Protesters in the Far North were recently arrested because they were occupying what they claimed to be their land. They were Maori and the land was a sailing club. "We're being arrested from our whenua" one said. They were protesting because this is where the ancient waka Mamaru landed for the last time. They want this land to be recognized as the tapu-sacred place it is. Te Ika a Maui and Te Waka o Aoraki both belong to Maori, if we are here we should consider it a privilege. As part of being a New Zealander we have to embrace Maori culture and language, only this way can we be truly bi-cultural. If the only way to achieve these changes is through protest, we will protest. Protests are what stopped the Apartheid machine on its tracks and what started the international boycott movement, protests are what give French a leeway against their government, protests are what made the situation better for Maori through the 70s and 80s, this is how they gained more rights. Protests allow us to tell the government that we are here too, that we matter and that we want what is rightfully ours, in this case an equal, multicultural New Zealand.
We should be wary of what the media says when it speaks about protests. They know they're effective, which is why they want to prove otherwise. Next time Maori or anyone else protests for further rights, we should join. The struggle can only be achieved through unity. And it's 4 million against John.
"I hate possums! They're a pest. They eat our native birds and we should get rid of them all!"
"Well... I know some people who would say the same about you..."
Touche.
Of course the conversation was much more than just that. But it's true. The last statement reflects the way many Maori feel about white people. I had to regret my words. We brought the possums in, it is our fault that the native wildlife is getting destroyed. It is also our fault that the native culture, language and peoples were destroyed so many years ago. Many politicians and those in government would like us to believe that this land is ours. After all we signed a treaty didn't we? But when they say 'ours' who do they mean? The treaty was left forgotten in a basement, water-ridden and being eaten by rats for thirty years.
This is also the situation endured by Maori. For a while the white man thought Maori would die out, Hoorah they said: "Taking all things into consideration, the disappearance of the race is scarcely subject for much regret. They axe dying out in a quick, easy way, and are being supplanted by a superior race." This a statement by a so-called Dr. Newman in 1881, in 1884 Sir Walter Buller only predicted twenty more years for the Maori race. It is no surprise then that the treaty was 'lost'.
Still now we hear comments saying that our arrival to New Zealand made things better. They were savages, cannibals. We gave them technology, education... We also destroyed the education they had, we destroyed their culture, we gave them a white god, we gave them drugs and alcohol.
The Maori situation still hasn't changed. While we boast that the indigenous peoples of New Zealand have a brighter future than any other indigenous people in the world thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi: a) this is something to mourn rather than celebrate. b) this doesn't mean the situation for Maori is 'good' c) the Treaty of Waitangi was only enshrined as a national document [and isn't a very good one] in 1975 with the Waitangi Tribunal.
Maori still now are much more likely to suffer from health problems, unemployment and poverty when compared to your average Pakeha. On the other hand, the Waitangi tribunal was set up after Maori started to protest for their rights to be equal [or maybe superior] to the white man, for the acceptance of their culture and to solve the disputes the white man created when he stole Maori land. Even though the protest movement died down, the situation isn't any better.
It is difficult to give a say on issues of race. It is easy for me to say that we should all have equal rights, because at the end of the day this is also what is best for me: an educated white boy. I personally think it'd be dumb to ask for a Maori only society, I can see where the desire comes from, but this would not create an equal society by definition, it would be a Maori and a Pakeha society, two separate ones, like Apartheid South Africa. At the same time society has to recognize that Maori start off handicapped because of their skin. They are more likely to fall into broken households where the parents haven't had a good access to education, thus bringing them into crime.
The first thing to do would be to recognize that this land is theirs, symbolically. Protesters in the Far North were recently arrested because they were occupying what they claimed to be their land. They were Maori and the land was a sailing club. "We're being arrested from our whenua" one said. They were protesting because this is where the ancient waka Mamaru landed for the last time. They want this land to be recognized as the tapu-sacred place it is. Te Ika a Maui and Te Waka o Aoraki both belong to Maori, if we are here we should consider it a privilege. As part of being a New Zealander we have to embrace Maori culture and language, only this way can we be truly bi-cultural. If the only way to achieve these changes is through protest, we will protest. Protests are what stopped the Apartheid machine on its tracks and what started the international boycott movement, protests are what give French a leeway against their government, protests are what made the situation better for Maori through the 70s and 80s, this is how they gained more rights. Protests allow us to tell the government that we are here too, that we matter and that we want what is rightfully ours, in this case an equal, multicultural New Zealand.
We should be wary of what the media says when it speaks about protests. They know they're effective, which is why they want to prove otherwise. Next time Maori or anyone else protests for further rights, we should join. The struggle can only be achieved through unity. And it's 4 million against John.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
If London was occupied.
This is an amazing vid about the daily struggles the Palestinians have to endure, set somewhere closer to us.
This is an amazing vid about the daily struggles the Palestinians have to endure, set somewhere closer to us.
Double Rainbow for the Dunedin Stadium!
I hitch-hiked back into Port Chalmers today. Anywhere else in the world and it'd be dangerous, but here everyone does it. Buses are too expensive, due to the city council's messed up priorities. Anyhow, I had no money, which was why I was working until 6 am.
An elderly couple picked me up, the woman was a kiwi, from here I'd say but the husband was not. His accent was quite strange and I couldn't place it. Scandinavian maybe? Well it was obvious that they'd both travelled quite a bit and it seems they have settled [back] in Dunedin. I agreed with them that it's a town with absolutely everything, why would anyone want to live in a bigger, less friendly city, where it is easier to get lost or mugged? We started talking about the ODT, the local rag, and we went on to talk about its April Fool's day issues. Every year it brings out a bizarre piece of false news. For some reason there are always people who fall for it. This year it said that beer would be flowing out of the public water taps of the brewery, to celebrate its hundredth anniversary. At 6 am the next day there was a queue of students waiting. Sigh.
This year the cartoonist, Tremain, drew a strip on the new stadium used as a glasshouse full of pot. I hate Tremain, he makes one good cartoon out of every 29 but this one was spot on! The stadium received so much opposition and it is said that the majority of the town didn't want it. We have Carisbrook, the House of Pain, an international stadium with an impressive history. The proponents for the stadium including the city council said that it was too cold... We live in Dunedin... It is cold. People in Scotland don't make glass houses to keep their sports players warm. And I'm sure the average Scot doesn't complain either, but maybe Dunedin has lost its roots? The truth is that the stadium was advertised as a multi sports complex, where cricket, soccer, rugby, etc. would be played. It turns out to be too small for cricket, demand for a soccer stadium of that size just doesn't exist in the city and the rugby team is relegating to a lower division and doesn't have the money to play in its own stadium now. Then they said that it could be used for concerts, however we are a town of 120,000. To fill it, one in four would have to go. That's not going to happen. Any sane band of international calibre would instead go up to Christchurch, which has a population of 300,000 and is the capital of the South Island.
Why then was the stadium made? I still think it will be cheaper to trash it now. It won't be ready for the world cup, so we're going to have to go back to the good old House of Pain, Home of Otago rugby for practically 130 years. Trashing it now would also mean that public transport could be funded, or a new library in South D... But using the new one for growing pot would be a great idea, everyone I've talked to (4 people) think it is an excellent idea. That's an absolute majority! Just imagine how happy people would be! And we'd get the money back if that's what they're interested in! From a utilitarian point of view, because more people would be happy with the idea than sad, it should be done. Why not?
An elderly couple picked me up, the woman was a kiwi, from here I'd say but the husband was not. His accent was quite strange and I couldn't place it. Scandinavian maybe? Well it was obvious that they'd both travelled quite a bit and it seems they have settled [back] in Dunedin. I agreed with them that it's a town with absolutely everything, why would anyone want to live in a bigger, less friendly city, where it is easier to get lost or mugged? We started talking about the ODT, the local rag, and we went on to talk about its April Fool's day issues. Every year it brings out a bizarre piece of false news. For some reason there are always people who fall for it. This year it said that beer would be flowing out of the public water taps of the brewery, to celebrate its hundredth anniversary. At 6 am the next day there was a queue of students waiting. Sigh.
This year the cartoonist, Tremain, drew a strip on the new stadium used as a glasshouse full of pot. I hate Tremain, he makes one good cartoon out of every 29 but this one was spot on! The stadium received so much opposition and it is said that the majority of the town didn't want it. We have Carisbrook, the House of Pain, an international stadium with an impressive history. The proponents for the stadium including the city council said that it was too cold... We live in Dunedin... It is cold. People in Scotland don't make glass houses to keep their sports players warm. And I'm sure the average Scot doesn't complain either, but maybe Dunedin has lost its roots? The truth is that the stadium was advertised as a multi sports complex, where cricket, soccer, rugby, etc. would be played. It turns out to be too small for cricket, demand for a soccer stadium of that size just doesn't exist in the city and the rugby team is relegating to a lower division and doesn't have the money to play in its own stadium now. Then they said that it could be used for concerts, however we are a town of 120,000. To fill it, one in four would have to go. That's not going to happen. Any sane band of international calibre would instead go up to Christchurch, which has a population of 300,000 and is the capital of the South Island.
Why then was the stadium made? I still think it will be cheaper to trash it now. It won't be ready for the world cup, so we're going to have to go back to the good old House of Pain, Home of Otago rugby for practically 130 years. Trashing it now would also mean that public transport could be funded, or a new library in South D... But using the new one for growing pot would be a great idea, everyone I've talked to (4 people) think it is an excellent idea. That's an absolute majority! Just imagine how happy people would be! And we'd get the money back if that's what they're interested in! From a utilitarian point of view, because more people would be happy with the idea than sad, it should be done. Why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)