Posts by HORansome
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Huawei Question, in reply to Juha Saarinen,
Either way, Russell Norman clearly knows something the rest of us don’t.
I’m going to be a social epistemologist and say that sentence should read:
“Either way, Russell Norman clearly feels he is justified in believing something the rest of us don’t.”
Maybe it’s the sceptic in me, but the Intelligence and Security Committee aren’t exactly the most reliable of sources when it comes to justified true beliefs.
-
Given that Russell and I have had (not heated) words concerning our differing diagnoses about the merits of the police case, I just want to say "ka pai."
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Russell Brown,
As I said, I didn't take notes so I'm operating from memory. I know that she did talk about "some South Africans" in the talk I attended and I might be mistaking that with the "Close Up" interview (which was, reportedly, edited; apparently it was a much longer discussion than the one that aired).
And furthermore, directly comparing the political system here to the practice of apartheid in South Africa is a gross insult to the suffering of black South Africans under a system that deprived them of their very humanity. Perhaps she could throw in a Holocaust comparison or a rape metaphor next time.
So, you're offended that Prof. Mutu has made a claim you disagree with, so you find it acceptable to then claim that maybe she might make also want to make similar analogies with the Holocaust or with rape?
Really? Do you really want to go there?
I think you are fixating here on one construal of the analogy: there is research which indicates that some South Africans came to New Zealand because it is a white culture with an indigenous population which is marginalised (and thus suffers from the entrenched effects of institutionalised racism). Whilst I know Prof. Mutu holds what some think are fairly radical views about how bad Pākehā and Māori relations are here and now I don't think she would (certainly not from the talk she gave yesterday) say that we had the explicit policy of Apartheid that South Africa had (although there have been policies similar to that in Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu's post-colonial history). That doesn't speak against what she is saying, though, which is that, attitudinally, some South Africans came here because they could continue to live their lives of smug superiority (almost all of this is bound up in Mutu's discussion of Prof. Spoonley's work, which hasn't really been touched on by the media with respect to this discussion.
But still, Russell, even suggesting that Prof. Mutu might like to make Holocaust or rape analogies to go with her discussion is a pretty low blow.
I think I'll bow out from PAS now.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Have you actually read the opinion piece? It doesn't say much more than what a lot of the unqualified 99% have been writing on their blogs and placards. It only seems notable because she is Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond.
If you are going to argue that her expertise applies to commentaries on what is, in essence, the current global financial system, then I argue that she is writing outside her expertise because, at best, her expertise is only weakly applicable to this material.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Sacha,
Early Pākehā history, I believe.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Because it's not an opinion piece on history but rather a combination of sociology and political philosophy (with some economics thrown in) about the here and now. Distinguished Professor Anne Salmond is a great historian and anthropologist, but what she's writing on in that article is, at best, very tangentially related to her own field of expertise.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Russell Brown,
Also, she said "some" South Africans. With that qualifier it's not actually stupid or offensive, because some do (this is supported by research: there is a lot of work going on at Auckland about the views of immigrants to New Zealand).
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Russell Brown,
Answering things in reverse day: the gist of it was that the SST article not only lacks context for some statements, only partially reported other statements and also featured statements which were not made by Mutu but were attributed to her (as I said, when the video becomes available I'll send out a link: it was an hour long talk and I didn't take notes).
There was also a section devoted to looking at the correspondence Mutu received afterwards, some of which included anatomically impossible instructions for her to carry out.
-
Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest, in reply to Russell Brown,
She walks back from the "Close Up" interview by arguing that they substantially cut that interview and thus a lot of the context around that statement (the qualifying statements, if you will) were left out.
-
This is a sentence I very rarely find the need to use, but:
"I find myself agreeing, in part, with Paul Moon."
Dame Salmond's article was, to my mind, high on well-written waffle but low on actual content.
I think it sort of showed that she was writing outside her field of expertise on this matter, which is why Moon (whose right-winginess rarely makes me smile joyfully) was able to easily fisk her, although some of his rebuttals bordered on the absurd: he, too, was writing outside of his field of expertise.
Related to all that: I went to a fascinating talk given by Prof. Margaret Mutu and Dr. Sue Abel on the SST's reporting of that immigration interview with Mutu. The talk was videoed, so I'll put up a link for those who are interested when it becomes available.
Mutu made a big point on the dual roles academics play in re critic/conscience of society and academic freedom (which is not just a fancy idea but enshrined in the Education Act) and how they apply only when you are talking about things in which you are a qualified expert.
Salmond's noble ideas of how society should work were nice and all, but I'm not entirely sure we should treat her opinion piece as being an important part of the conversation, especially given that it's long on rhetoric yet vague on solutions. For an academic to play the role of critic and conscience of society they need to more than just an academic but rather a suitably qualified academic in a field relevant to the discussion society is having.
Also, I think someone needs to capitalise "Salmond" in the penultimate paragraph of the post.