Jun 10, 2011

David fucking Farrar (updated)

David Farrar on the Taniwha Horotiu (I'm not linking to it):

Poor Horotiu. I imagine that the only thing which could make him feel better is a huge amount of koha. Maybe once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains.

This does remind me of the last time a Taniwha held up a project. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying they had solved the problem, as they shot the Taniwha at the weekend!

I do not know what Farrar is trying to achieve here. My take is that he is patronising Maori culture. The tone is denigrating and smug. I guess it is typical of the sort of cultural arrogance that permeates the National Party, but I must admit to thinking Farrar was better than this.

“A huge amount of koha”. Is that implying Maori can be pacified with hand-outs? Or that Maori are greedy and prone to accepting donations? “Once the tunnel is built, they could do a side tunnel for him, so he can play safely away from the trains”. Is that implying that the concept of a Taniwha is childish?

New Zealanders love to take the piss out of other cultures, as if their culture is the be all and end all. It is perfectly acceptable if David and his mates do not accept the concept of Taniwha, that’s there call and a fair one, but it is rude, disrespectful and borderline racist to go around disparaging other cultural beliefs. It is the worst sort of arrogance.

The implication I get from David’s post is that Maori are ignorant and childish. Whatever you do do not have a look at the comments section, unless you want to go on an anti-pakeha rage – possibly even a violence spree. The comments are repugnant, repulsive, hideous, obscene, racist, sick, malicious, hateful. The English language is inadequate, I cannot find the appropriate word.

All I have to say to the commenters at Kiwiblog is get fucked. Go and die. As for David – you’re just a disappointment. Fomenting happy mischief? Get real. Fomenting hate. That sounds more accurate.   

UPDATE: I have had a flurry of comments scolding me for believing in Taniwha (I have not published any due to racist content). Let me be clear, this post is not about whether or not Taniwha exist. This post is about the disrespectful stance David and his friends at Kiwiblog take against Maori culture. And for the record - I do not believe in Taniwha as a tangible and measurable phenomenon - take what you will from that. 

28 comments:

  1. I assume that this is the default attitude within the National Party. It's the kind of attitude repeatedly expressed by their former leader in public, and I would be surprised if a great number of MPs didn't hold this view in private.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On a typical Kiwiblog post I might read the first four or five comments and then close the screen in disgust. On a Kiwiblog post like this I'm wise enough to not even look at the comments. They're some seriously unhinged, venom-spitting, ultraconservative wingnuts who foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Maori Land Rights, the Green Party, or Helen Clark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. “A huge amount of koha”. Is that implying Maori can be pacified with hand-outs? Or that Maori are greedy and prone to accepting donations?

    No. Its simply stating that some objections from Maori are an invitation for 'compensation', not a request to be listened to.

    I have participated in Maori consultation several times. In most cases the iwi simply want to be informed (most of all), but listened to and a compromise found. However, I have experienced two cases where koha was requested. Fortunately, the people requesting it didn't appear to hold much authority within the iwi.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And for the record - I do not believe in Taniwha as a tangible and measurable phenomenon

    ~95% of people probably do take 'there's a taniwha there' to mean there's literally a 'Maori dragon' there. It's probably not clear that it's 'conceptual', and even when it is I'm not sure people would respect that either. Something tangible like a burial site is one thing, but this is a pretty hard sell...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tautoko: 'This post is about the disrespectful stance David and his friends at Kiwiblog take against Maori culture.'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good to see David is doing God's work once again. As for you Godfery just go back to supporting that other well known racist but then again I guess that's acceptable because he's brown

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Gods work" - what a joke. Get a life, anon.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Damnit Morgan, your heading got your blog caught in the obscenity filter at my work. And I work for [a Maori-related organisation], so this is one of the few blogs I can read at work without feeling guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have no idea what to think about the taniwha issue because I have no idea what's actually being said. In situations like this, if someone says 'this project should be stopped/changed because there's a taniwha there', do they mean that they really do believe there is an actual magic beastie; or is it a metaphorical way of bringing up environmental issues; or is it a way of saying 'you haven't even tried to find out what the issues are for Maori'; or a way of saying 'okay, so on a rational level I know this sounds a bit silly, but putting a road/tunnel/etc through there still gives me and other people the heeby-jeebies'; or what?

    I think most Pakeha find stuff like this foreign and bewildering, and unfortunately some deal with that with anger and hatred. But it would help if someone explained what's really going on here. (okay, I know it probably varies from person to person, but explanation is usually a better way of dealing with anger than more anger)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Instead of focusing on various people's reaction to this mess, perhaps you could take issue with the creator of this mess.

    WTF was that idiot of the Maori Advisory Board thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good call G. Today it's taniwha, tomorrow it could be urupa. Gotta draw the line somewhere and call it how you see it .

    ReplyDelete
  12. " I think most Pakeha find stuff like this foreign and bewildering, and unfortunately some deal with that with anger and hatred "

    Bewildering fuck yes, I find christianity bewildering but if Destiny Church were to make to demand government funding or complain that they didn't get it...

    I find it astonishing that Taniwha can be managed by cash you need to think this through mate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You do know DPF claims to be Jewish when he needs to cloth himself in the sack cloth and ashes of vicarious persecution?

    Therefore, I can only conclude you hate Israel and are jealous of Farrar because he is free.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think this whole "but there's a taniwha" business is childish and stupid.

    But then I think believing in Jebus the invisible superhero is childish and stupid too.

    Apparently that makes me arrogant and racist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David Farrar is one of the biggest racists in the blogosphere. Except he's too gutless to admit it. His blog is full of dog-whistling posts; he'll often allude to a controversial topic, thereby inciting his readers to post obscene and inflammatory comments. In other words, he's a coward and a bully getting his regular posters to do his dirty work and publishing his thoughts vicariously through others.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Excuse the anonymous post, I just can't be bothered creating an account.

    I think it is a question of attack on culture or attack on religion.

    If Farrar (who I agree was kind of smug in that post) was attacking customs on a Marae, or any other aspect of Maori "culture" then that would be one thing.

    But to attack a religion is another. Religion to me is different to culture, and traditional faiths should in no way be held to a different standard than established religions (Christianity, Islam, etc, etc).

    I have to be honest, I don't understand enough of the issue to know which category this falls in to. But what I'm trying to drive at is an attack on culture isn't cool, while an attack on religion is fair game.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The taniwha is fiction and nonsense, created with the only purpose of getting a handout.

    Greed rules in Maoridom.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Taniwha, leprechaun, ghosts, etc- all the same to me. When they are all given legal status then Ill put in a claim for damage to my particular spirit - untill then its all bullshit..

    Opps - sorry - money

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Go and die" .. wow

    ReplyDelete
  20. "David Farrar is one of the biggest racists in the blogosphere"

    This is based on what evidence?

    Do you like making offensive stuff up about people Te Pono?

    ReplyDelete
  21. The whole point of this post seems to be that because someone claims a belief is part of their culture it is somehow sacrosanct and cannot be criticised by people not of that culture.

    This is absolute rot. I don't have to be Roman Catholic or even a Christian to criticise the Catholic Church's teachings on a whole range of issues which are rooted in medieval thinking, (e.g. the role of women in the hierachy of the Church or the views on Contraception).

    I suggest that if you truly think someone exposing superstitious nonsense mascarading as Maori culture is above criticism then Maori culture is in a great deal of trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Criticism is one thing, gratuitously insulting an entire ethnic group/culture is another. If people want to say they're skeptical that anyone in the 21st century honestly believes in taniwha, it's possible to say so without throwing insults around or generally being a dick.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ummmmm...

    Where did he gratuitously insult an entire ethnic group/culture???

    He stated that what the individual in question stated about the Taniwha was basically superstitious nonsense.

    It would be no different if I stated that the Pope's views on contraception was superstitious nonsense.

    As for the unsubstantiated and outrageous claim that David Farrar is one of the biggest racist in the blogosphere, how is that valid when he posts something like this http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/06/overuse_of_racist.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mostly I was referring to 'greed rules in Maoridom'. But my general point is that it's possible to have this discussion in a more civil manner. If I was talking to a Catholic about their church's views on birth control, I would try and use well reasoned argument rather than blathering on about superstitious nonsense and the dark ages and so forth (even though I do think it's dark age superstitious nonsense), because insulting their church means they will just think 'she's just a bigot, I don't have to listen'. Same with this issue - if you can be dismissed as a racist, your point won't get across, no matter how valid it might be.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm overseas at the moment, so I have missed this debate up until now. I think there are better ways to debate your enemy than to tell them to go f*** themselves and die. This type of response hardens their resolve even further and gives legitimacy to their views. I can understand your frustration but in future don't give them the plasure of thinking they have the moral highground.

    ReplyDelete
  26. helenalex,

    That is your view and it is possibly a correct one. However many people have differing views on dealing with other people. Hone Harawira for example has many times chosen language which is highly offensive, far more than what David Farrar has used in the instance in question. I believe that this is part and parcel of have a free and open society.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Gosman, I'm absolutely positive David Farrar enjoyed many an offensive description when describing Maori in private conversations and emails.

    ReplyDelete
  28. When you're inside the Blue Bubble things look different.

    A Nat being dismissively smug? Really? No way....Can't even begin to imagine it.

    ReplyDelete

Rules:

1. Anonymous comments will be rejected. Please use your real name or a pseudonym/moniker/etc...
2. No personal abuse. Defamatory comments will be rejected.
3. I'll reject any comment that isn't in good taste.