Sign stolen from Auschwitz found, police say

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Brian Foley, Dec 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    For one thing, ownership of their victim status in Auschwitz. Its their memorial
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I wouldn't sweat the details: they're meaningless to someone like S.A.M., who wouldn't know the difference anyway, and is just going to stick you in some reductive "assimilated" category no matter what you say. Your previous response was much nearer the mark.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Its true I wouldn't know the difference, its not common knowledge, Trippy would probably know more about my culture as a Maharashtrian-Gujarati-Konkani-Pathan.

    And its good he's assimilated, it gives him opportunities his Maori background would not offer him. It simply does not possess the same status, unless he gets seat reservations as a backward class.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    And so up to them to decide who owns what "status" there. And I have yet to hear any complaints about recognizing the fact that 90% of the victims were Jews (nor are "Jew" and "Pole" mutually exclusive categories to begin with).

    Most of the people living in that part of Poland were not victims of Auschwitz.

    Nor, for that matter, do any of the declarations of basic human rights that I'm familiar with say anything about "ownership of victim status."

    Just about everyone I know with any grasp of European history at all regards the Poles as having been victimized by both the Germans and the Russians, from the present day all the way back to many generations before WWII, BTW. If anything the Poles - like other Nazi subjects - frequently get off far too easily for the cooperation with various Nazi crimes on their territories.
     
  8. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    What you think of the category you're putting someone in is beside the point.

    The offense is in your violation of Trippy's right to self-determination. He gets to tell you what his culture is, and how it relates to his co-nationals. Not the other way around. You don't get to create and impose categories on people you know nothing about. That is imperialism, in a nutshell. All you lack is the power to enforce your self-serving myopia and condescension.
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Of course they do, its why its why the Holocaust is synonymous with Jews, other victims simply do not count or receive the same benefits or reparations.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Self determination? He did not have a choice there. Its not an and or situation, much like the untouchables he was born into it. The Europeans can still tell you where they came from, the Maori cannot go further back than New Zealand.
     
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Okay, so first things first.
    I don't consider myself to be an 'assimilated maori'.
    I consider myself to be a New Zealander.
    I consider myself to be as Kiwi as my wife is, who has no maori blood what so ever (She's 1/4 Canuck, 1/4 Brit + Whatever is on her fathers side).
    I don't appreciate being pigeon holed, because I think that pigeon holing is divisive. As I understand it, this is the point of view of the vast majority of New Zealanders.
    I am of the opinion that Kai Tahu probably have some of the most 'inclusive' approaches to various things.

    For example Aoraki/Mt Cook. As I understand it, it's a sacred mountain to Kai Tahu Maori, however, when ownership was returned to Kai Tahu (I forget which year) Kai Tahu effectively gifted it back to the government on the proviso that it was renamed Aoraki/Mt Cook to regognize that New Zealand is a bicultural soceity, and that all New Zealanders should be able to access it freely (this as opposed to the tribes from the Taranaki area who insisted that Mt Egmont be renamed to Mt Taranaki, rather than say Taranaki/Egmont).

    The Maori have been awarded back soomething like half the land that was taken from them illegaly, unfortunately there have been some mistakes, and, as always, there are extremists.

    I don't know where to start. I mean, to me the ideal is one state, one government that aknowledges and represents both cultures, while keeping in mind the principles of the treaty of waitangi.
     
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Non-sequitur, and a mass of ignorance and supposition to boot. Have fun in your one-idiot echo-chamber. It must be cozy in there, disconnected from reality as it is.
     
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Trippy:

    Of course, and your point of view is probably that shared by most Maoris. Which is why they were not occupying the Europeans.

    Inclusive is not a word in the European dictionary.
     
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    He absolutely has the power of defining his own identity, and just exercised it there in his last post. No amount of your reductive readings of history change that, and it is overtly disrespectful to pigeonhole him into categories he rejects. He and his wife are New Zealanders, as he just asserted. There are no "Europeans" in this situation; only Kiwis.
     
  15. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Yes, an interesting point. In context of Israel/Palestine, yes of course it seems dishonest. Yet, the actual victims of Auschwitz had nothing to do with present day Zionism and its disgusting policies and certainly deserve commemoration. Don`t forget that many Jews today, who lost loved ones and entire families in the Holocaust have very little to focus their grief on, so memorials such as Auschwitz serve as loci for individual grieving. :m:
     
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The Maori aren't viewed as being backward.
    You wont go onto a Marae and be greeted by grass skirts, poi's and taiaha (unless you're in a tourist trap and the marae is running something similar to a show). You may be expected to perform a waiata, and there are certain ritual's that will be observed, however...
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I don't need to pigeonhole him. Personal experience tells me that if he chooses to live his life as an indigenous Maori and speak the native language rather than the imported one, it would effectively eliminate most of his opportunities. Thats not self determination, thats pragmatism. Self determination would enable him to choose either without losing benefits.

    Are poi's and taiaha backward? Whats forward?

    I wear indigenous clothes over western ones but I don't consider myself backward
     
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Then stop doing it.

    You don't have any relevant personal experience of New Zealand to stand on here. You're being told how it works by someone who does. You can either respect that or not, but the latter option is exactly that: disrespect.

    His opportunities to interact with and/or join a different culture, and/or forge a new common one? Yes. That is the downside of choosing not to live in a way that is compatible with those ends.

    When you define "benefits" to be "membership in a different culture," as you have, then you end up with nonsense. Congratulations.

    In reality, self-determination consists of individuals making choices for themselves, in full knowledge and acceptance of both the benefits and costs of each choice. If somebody wants to live as a native, isolated from modern society, then they give up the benefits of membership in said modern society. That's what self-determination is.

    Fortunately for everyone, New Zealand is pretty good about giving people the opportunity to preserve the stuff they like about the native culture, while enjoying all the benefits of modern Western society. They do this by creating a new identity (Kiwi) that encompasses both, and so leaves everyone room to play. Trippy seems quite happy with this, and it is offensive for you to, basically, call him an ethnic sell-out for not adopting your divisive native vs. European culture war politics.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2009
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    History suggests otherwise.
    The Treaty of Waitangi is actually a surprisingly insightful and inclusive document (in many respects at least) that contains some unfortunate wording as well as translational errors, because it was rushed, because the French were planning on claiming New Zealand sovereignty by military right (at the time, no specific European nation was really able to claim legal sovereignty).
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on February 6, 1840, by representatives of the British Crown, and various Māori chiefs from the northern North Island of New Zealand. The Treaty established a British governor in New Zealand, recognised Māori ownership of their lands and other properties, and gave Māori the rights of British subjects. However the English and Māori language versions of the Treaty differ significantly, and so there is no consensus as to exactly what was agreed. From the British point of view, the Treaty gave Britain sovereignty over New Zealand, and gave the Governor the right to run the country; Māori seem to have had a range of understandings, many of which conflicted with the British understanding. After the initial signing at Waitangi, copies of the Treaty were taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed.

    Until the 1970s, the Treaty was generally ignored by both the courts and parliament, although it was usually depicted in New Zealand history as a generous and loving act on the part of the Crown. From at least the 1860s, Māori looked to the Treaty, with little success, for rights and remedies for land loss and unequal treatment by the state. From the late 1960s, Māori began drawing attention to breaches of the Treaty, and subsequent histories have emphasised problems with its translation. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with researching breaches of the Treaty by the Crown or its agents, and suggesting means of redress.​

    No its pretty similar to the sale of Manhattan and the East India Company treaties with Indian princes. Its all in the interpretation.
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No, it wouldn't.
    In fact, speaking fluent conversational maori would probably have opened different doors without closing any, I probably would have been able to establish a personal relationship with members of Kai Tahu ki Otakou, that might have seen me in a higher paying policy making position than my current role (not policy making).

    Then by your definition, Maori have self determination.

    Well then good for you, and if that's not what you were trying to imply, then so be it, I apologize for grabbing the wrong end of the stick.
     
  22. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Because the USA and Europe culturally identify with the Holocaust more than they do with the nastiness in Rwanda.
     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Seriously.
    You're quoting my history back at me even though i've already aknowledged the point your making?

    The section you hilighted overstates the issue (in my opinion, as a good little Uncle Tom) besides which, under international law, the native version takes precedence, and generally the NZ Government gives the maori version precedence over the english version so...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page