Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'd didn't think that Ka Mate was a war chant. Can't it be summarised as:
"Cheers bro! I thought I was fucked then, eh!"As a brevity it is reasonably accurate. Agreed, Haka Taparahi is not a war chant. It is a posture dance.
A bit like hip-hop without the gangsta overtones, phat jazz grooves or wahine=ho mysoginistic attitude.
i.e. a statement of social cohesion sans imported negative connotations.
-
No-one has mentioned the Haka yet, my feeling is that it is mis-used in the AB context, not so in the funeral context.
Hmm, what exactly are you saying ? Haka in general or Ka Mate more specifically ?
I'm not a fan of Ka Mate - I consider Te Rauparaha to have exhibited seriously psychopathic behaviour, and do not think that his haka is necessarily the best choice for the All Blacks. Perhaps, one day, Kapa o Pango will be as universally known as Ka Mate is today and we'll have a general shift towards a purpose-written AB haka. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I suggest they do some research and see how approving they are of Te Rauparaha's activities.
I remain unconvinced that watching violent TV programmes or rugby, or smacking for that matter, lead in any casual sense to the sort of adult violence against children that is under discusion.
Neil, has it ever occurred to you that for violence to thrive, it has to have a benign environment ? Humans are social animals, and living in an environment that promotes or glorifies realistic violent endeavour surely contributes to a situation where an adult feels justified, even supported, in continuing a set of abusive behaviours towards others; and in many cases this would be children associated with that adult.
We don't live in a vacuum; and society is not a collection of omniscient rational economic actors. We live in a complex social environment where many of the factors are co-related. And it would do well if our analysis of child-abuse statistics reflected this.
-
Thanks for coming by Mikaere, and my sincere best wishes for the task ahead of your whanau.
Thanks.
We must stop condoning violence as entertainment, especially the unrealistic violence that has no consequences that is the staple of so many movies, TV programs, and computer games.
Brent, I think our approach needs to be more nuanced than what you suggest. I happen to enjoy specific kinds of violent entertainment. More on that in a moment.
The discussion re on-field assaults in rugby highlights an excellent example of the meme that violence is a valid mechanism to resolve a conflict. Now, I'm all for people agreeing to a set of rules about how to conduct a physically demanding contact sport. Playing hard rugby, fine. But describing on-field assaults as "biffo" or "argy-bargy" is patently irresponsible. Young men should never be granted permission to act in violent ways, which is exactly what happens when sports commentators gleefully attach euphemistic labels to activities that have no place on a sports field. And it's relatively easy to fix - the networks just need to lay down a policy that no longer condones violence in sports.
A lot of TV shows and movies attach a notion that the hero/heroine is allowed to be verbally and/or physically abusively, to the point whether it is an acceptable (and possibly desirable) attribute. This ranges from shows where the characters are nasty to each other on Nickelodean to those awful American cop/pseudo-cop shows populated by smug, abusive, righteous police officers. The assertion seems that as long you succeed (i.e. get the bad guys), then you can behave disrespectfully towards anyone who isn't complying with your wishes along the way.
Which brings us to games. Unlike TV fiction, which portrays "real" characters (as in the characters are supposed to be drawn from our global society) doing "real" things (as in a factitious representation of real world activities), games tend to be quite firmly fantastic. They just don't feel real to me at all, and I think that makes a major difference.
I run live action roleplaying games for kids once or twice a year. We use foam weapons and the kids fight against the adults (not each other). It's good, clean fun which promotes cooperation and teamwork and I can't see how connotations with violence have a negative impact on either the game or the kids.
So, I guess I'm saying that it's not about removing references to violence from our culture, rather it is about removing validation of violence that is based on "real life".
-
William Curtis is my first cousin. His two sons, Wiremu and Michael, are my nephews.
Right now, as a whanau, we are grappling with the issues raised by the abuse of Nia Glassie. We held a whanau hui last Sunday, and another one yesterday. We're going to find a way to address the causes of abuse within our whanau (suffice to say that it is highly unlikely that Nia Glassie is the only person abused by member(s) of the Curtis whanau).
It's not going to be easy, and it certainly won't be quick. But we're determined to confront our issues, in our own time, in our own way. I believe a vector for child abuse is cross-generation transmission, which means that it is our responsibility to deal with it now so our mokopuna don't have to.
Part of "The Solution" (tm) is for families to take responsibility, like we're doing. Since not all whanau are going to have the will or resources to follow this path, we - as a society - need other mechanisms to detect and prevent child abuse.
And I think it would be useful if we considered the place of violence in our society, and the assumptions that surround it. There are two memes that are salient to me.
The first one is that violence is an acceptable mechanism of conflict resolution. Just watch any action movie. Violent people are heroes.
The second, and perhaps most important, is that violence has virtually no consequences. This meme is constantly reinforced by our popular media.
I suspect that much of the killing and maiming in our society can be traced to people using violence to get what they want, and who never intended to kill or maim.
-
And Labour's only hope is to try to draw Key into these kinds of confrontations repeatedly. If they can project an image of someone who hasn't got a clue what his party's position is on anything, or at least he isn't going to tell us in an unambiguous way, they might stand a chance.
My impression is that party leaders are anointed by the media. For example, that worm thing that resulted in United Future going from one to six MPs in the space of a week.
John Key was similarly anointed, IMHO, during the 2005 election campaign and stayed that way despite his vacuousness on anything other than tax cuts. As was Bill English before him (which was subsequently withdrawn when he failed to perform).
And now "Jandal" Key has picked a fight with the political editor of the Herald, a direct result of his strategy of obfuscation and flipflopping.
The so-called honeymoon with the public is more likely a honeymoon with the media. And Key is burning his credibility with the media.
I hope he keeps it up, I've got a 40oz of Bombay Sapphire riding on National losing the next election :)
-
Has John Key got a nickname yet ?
I vote for "Jandal"
-
This speech on vaccination she gave in 2004 gives me the creeps. She chucks in any old fear she can lay her hands on, including claims that are specifically debunked by our own Ministry of Health. I think it's reckless.
I suppose this is one of the reasons that I desperately want the Greens to be part of the government - to move them out of opposition, where FUD is a constant temptation, and into a role where they can sink their teeth into some proactive policy delivery.
There seems to be a "They shouldn't be worried about that <insert topic>" meme that surrounds the Greens whenever there's some kind of policy win. The cure, I hope, is to get some Green Ministers and Associate Ministers. Then they'll be seen as doing real government work, as opposed to being in constant liberal/environmental rearguard action.
-
You can't be pure as the driven snow and put out that sort of shit at the same time.
Hence my comment about it being akin to a gloat-a-thon. There's no need for these kind of media releases, especially when Morning Report are doing a nice job of it for you. I much prefer positive, Way Forward style releases.
The point isn't that the Greens are wrong, the point is where they and their supporters and potential supporters want to spend political capital. That's not a bottomless bucket.
Something I forgot to mention in my original post, the MPs are bound by our policy (there is a way to be unbound, but it has to be upfront when they apply for candidate selection). They can't vote or act against our policy, but they can promote legislation that partially progresses the policy.
The fact remains that it is part of ratified policy, ergo there was a party-wide consensus for this policy. Sue has every right to campaign on this issue. Anyone who thinks otherwise just hasn't read the policy.
I agree, it's not a bottomless bucket, but it is policy. I suspect that potential supporters would be dismayed if our MPs ditched policy on some kind of finite-bucket theory.
-
That, folks, is in one sentence why everyone finds the Greens, more than anything else, just plain irritating.
I hereby invite you to use your power of Omniscient Generalisation for Good and not Evil by joining the Greens to help us lower our Irritation Factor.
Or maybe we'll just get a net gain ?
-
I am interested to know why people who generally support the greens have a parting of ways on this issue.
I think it's partially the way the campaign was waged - basically the approach was to bag the Bill and generate support for defeating it rather than promote a better alternative.
I think Sue could have more successfully promoted the fact that the Greens were pro-regulation. "Anti-Bill" could be conflated with "anti-regulation", as is quite plainly demonstrated on this forum.
Is it because Sue Kedgely is off-putting?
Yes, I think there are some who just don't like Sue Kedgely. Personally, I've got time for her, she's an earnest campaigner. Not that I think she'll ever live down the DHMO snafu...