Why Blog?

“I've always viewed those that keep solid, regularly updated blogs with an equal mixture of admiration and disdain.” (Alex Nelder, AWordOnFailure)

Ages ago, back when Alex and I thought blogging would be “cool” and “fun”, Alex wrote the first post for our blog. It was a kind of defense of blogging; an explanation of why blogs are worthwhile. While I’m typically not a critical person, I must say that that post of his left me puzzled. And, after thinking about it for a while, forgetting it, remembering it, thinking about it some more, and finally having a chance to write out my thoughts, I’ve decided to try and explain why blogs are bad. I think blogging to stupid; there are a number of problems with it.

Probably the most pressing problem with blogging is the threat to legitimate authorship and journalism. A blog is kinda like a mic; it’s a way to get your ideas out there; to be heard. Every time you write a post, blogspot screams “Congratulations! Your post has been successfully published!” While this isn't "real" publication, your views are still out there for all to see in a real way. In fact, things on the internet are vastly more accessible than traditional/legitimate forms of publication. This isn't so much a problem for Alex or I, since our blog doesn't get the same number of comments as The itty bitty kitty committee blog, but it's a danger for the public and the marketplace of ideas when stupid people, bigots, neophytes, and the like decide to blog. Some ideas don’t deserve to stand on the soapbox that is the internet. But bad blogs are out there, acting as a way for bad ideas and opinions to spread like an STI through a college dorm. People get onto their blog and spout ideas that are dumb or just plain wrong; the absence of checks and balances allows them to act as an authority on topics they aren't. Blogs promote the mantra that everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it – which is wrong; only experts and smart people are entitled to their opinions. When you boil it down, blogs are the FOX News of the internet: a way for "information" to get transmitted, when it really shouldn't.

And there's another, more personal, danger that comes with blogging: being misinterpreted. Again, because what you say is "published" on the omni-present interweb it's accessible to (virtually) everyone. And because we all aren’t as clear writers as Alex, if you're unclear in what you say people might take it the wrong way. Here, then, people mistake your views for something that they're not. Another way you can be misinterpreted is why you blog. Your motivation can be, a lot of the time, unclear. I guess this is a risk you take when you blog, but it's never that much fun to reap the consequences of being attributed views that you don't have. Comments are nice, I suppose, because they enable a discussion through which you can get at your underlying considerations… but comments aren’t mandatory; presumptive reactions are much easier.

More superficially, blogging isn't trendy anymore. It's like... something that's used to be new and sheik but now something "serious" people leave to 14 year olds and net-obsessed geeks. Blogging has gone from a new way to communicate to just another away to spew verbal puke. Not that I'm a slave to trends, but blogging now lacks the appeal that once made it popular. There are so many blogs out there that's someone worthwhile isn't really capable of finding the blog they'd be best reading. Soo many blogs are just online diaries… ours is plainly not; but this remains an inescapable stigma. More than anything else, blogs now seems to be mainly a way to communicate with friends and random from the net. Don’t get me wrong, that's okay. But if that's all I'm gonna get outta it, I might as well just talk to friends and strangers on the street than put in the effort of blogging.

So, when people ask me "why do you blog?" (or, rather, what I'd imagine they'd ask if they cared when they I mention that I blog), my answer is: “I dunno; maybe I shouldn't”. Does that mean that my continuance to blog makes me some kind of hypocrite or whatever? I don’t think so, instead I’d say it means that my relationship with blogs in akin to David Suzuki’s with TV: fighting to convince others of the legitimacy of my views via the medium I hate. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

So...when CAN the Red Man get ahead, man?

I realise that people who read 'A Word on Failure' are not on the cutting edge of modern society. I know this because you read 'A Word on Failure', when all the cool kids are spending their precious net-reading time dissecting The Standard, The Beastly Huffington, or looking up funny clips on Youtube. I mean, Paul and I haven't even worked out how to upload photos yet! So, I could forgive you, long-suffering readers of an inferior blog, if you had been SO out of touch with society, that you hadn't caught up with the news recently. If you'd missed for example, that a black guy is now President of the United States of America.

In a comically bad life decision, considering I had work and class the next day, I stayed awake the whole night waiting for the Obama Inauguration speech. (In NZ, we're 18 hours behind Barackington DC, so midday there was 6am there). I even bought pretzels and Budweiser. So, by the time the speech ACTUALLY arrived (after hours and hours of mindless drivel, as the pundocracy tried to stretch coverage of the President-Elect's front-door out for a few hours), I had hyped it up to such an unreasonable extent I expected the poetry within Obama's prose to melt my jaded heart, leading me to sing the praises of YesweCanism from the pews of Baracktholic Church, and immediately apply for a green card.

For four entirely unrelated and downright curmudgeonly reasons, I was dissapointed.

The first was a sense of dissapointment in myself. The reason I ended up tossing my 'McCain 08' badge in the (non-recyclable) trash can was because Obama's whole campaign rhetoric boiled down to this; you couldnt rely on Washington (insert the name of your own country's ineffectual capital here) to tackle the planet-saving tasks of climate change reduction, giving everyone a fair and decent go in life, and mending an economy broken by a philosophy of greed - EVERYONE needed to act together to solve them. Thats why his slogan was 'Yes WE can' and 'WE are the one's WE'VE been waiting for' - NOT 'With my help, your self-destructive behaviour will have no negative harms!'. But when I watched Obama's speech I waited for him to reassure me, give me some lofty rhetoric that would convince me that everything was going to be all right, that the recession wasn't gonna hurt me. I waited for the lofty rhetoric that would bring me to tears. And when it didnt come, when it was replaced with somber prose about the magnitude of the challenges facing the West, and the need for individuals to shoulder a collective burden, I felt cheated. Even though that was what Obama had promised to do the whole time.

My second gripe was with the steady stream of moonbat political pundits that proclaimed throughout the day that this was the 'victory of the civil rights movement'. What a bunch of crap. Blacks still occupy the lowest rungs of the education and health ladders, and are grossly overrepresented and prison and unemployment statistics. Obama (and Condi, and Colin and Tony Dungy) represent deviations from a general statistic, outliers if you will. They are black people that, through dint of their exceptional ability were able to rise to the top and overcome MORE barriers than would have been faced by a white candidate in that same position. To say that Obama's ascent to the presidency is proof that equality now reins in America, and black people can no longer claim their colour as an excuse (thankyou, The Economist, for that little piece of latent racism) is deeply offensive to those who fought so hard for black civil rights. Chris Rock is right, there will be true equality in America when there is a Black president as dumb as George Bush.

H'okay, Gripe number three. This concerns the infuriating tendency of liberal American speechmakers, and Obama in particular to make dovish, cooing noises about an America that honours diversity and a plurality of values AND then the next sentence, to make an impassioned appeal to the power of an almighty Christian god to bless America, and bless American exceptionalism. No longer can America have their sunday school cake and eat it. The Obama administration must choose between referencing the Christian God as America's very own saviour and protector, and sticking the middle finger at....errr, any one else in the world whose value system doesnt match America's OR it can prove that it gives a damn about diversity, and the legitimacy of a non Christian belief framework. I know which one I'd prefer.

Finally, and this was something I didnt even notice until a friend pointed it out, but where were the Native Americans in Obama's speech? Even we evoked the metaphor of the first settlers to America (the Pilgrims, duhhh), the Native Americans were conspicuously absent. America's indigenous peoples constantly appear WAY down the list of government priorities, which is a travesty for the advancement of indigineous peoples everywhere. The plight of many Native Americans is truly dire, employment on some reservations hits 77%, drug use is rampant and effective programmes for community renewal are completely non-existent. Worse still, many fundamental cornerstones of the American legal system are wholly inadequate in accounting for the very real, cultural and religious norms of the Native American people. The first Amendment, for example, which forbids the establishment of a state-owned religion, does not cater for the spiritual, community and location-based practices of the Native Americans, only for the individual, scripture-based doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and shit, yo). So, the first amendment has been used to justify the bulldozing of Native American burial sites, and to fire Native American employees who engage in the cultural practice of peyote. And yet, despite these gross abuses of the rights of the first peoples, that are afforded no airtime in one of the most important speeches by a American leader in its history.

Make no mistake, I like Obama, and I desperately want him and his presidency to succeed. But America has been presented with a unique chance for renewal, and a unique chance to look at a comprehensive overhaul of its political culture. To give a fuck about the Native Americans. To realise diversity exists, and its sexy. To realise that America has only taken one step forward on the path to equality, not teleported to the finish line. And to realise that individuals cannot free-ride on other peoples good behaviour, we must all be responsible for bringing er, change we can believe in.

If Obama can do all these things, Im booking a ticket to South Dakota, and carving his face into Mt Rushmore. If he shies away from major change....well, then he's Bill Clinton.

Alex.

The Prudence of Self-Love

“Good nature without prudence, is foolishness.” (unknown)

Say you’re in a relationship; a romantic relationship, that is. And, say, you’ve had enough; you’re ready to cut ‘em loose. But not because your partner drives you nuts or you can’t stand to look at ‘em. I’m not talking about cases that severe. What I’m talking about are instances where you just aren’t really motivated to stay romantically involved; you’ve just lost interest. In these cases, should you end it? Or, keep ‘em around until you find someone better (or until you can’t stand to look at ‘em anymore)??

On the one hand, it seems that, if you feel that way, you oughtta just cut ‘em loose. It doesn’t really seem “fair” to string ‘em along if you don’t see a future with your partner and aren’t really motivated to be with ‘em. Some (crazy) idealists might even go so far as to say that you have an obligation to be forthright with your partner about this kinda thing.

But, on the other hand, you aren’t really worse off by keep ‘em around. In fact, you might be better off. Here you’ve got someone (at least marginally) committed to you. You might even be in a relationship where you get to have sex. (Yay!) Unless you have a positive reason to stop spending time with your partner (which isn’t the case here), you might as well keep ‘em around until you have a reason not to. It’s in your best interest to have someone to sex up, rather than having to sex yourself up until you find someone else, right? So, you should serve your own best interest by keeping 'em around until you have more of a reason to end it.

But this argument is, of course, a prudential one. (While the first one was more of an ethical one.) But the prudential argument is certainly true: it is in your (selfish) best interest to do what’s best for you. Here, it’s the case that it’s in your best interest to stay in a relationship you aren’t actively interested in being in; you just don’t have positive argument to get out of it… expect the ethical one above. But is that enough? Should you look out for yourself or do what's “right”?

That argument for why you should end the relationship is focused on what’s in your partner’s best interest (rather than yours). If it’s true that it’s in his/her best interest to “not get strung along by some jerk”, then this argument entails that you've got an obligation to end it. But what’s interesting here is that it’s unclear whose interests you should be looking out for. Yours? Or your partner’s? Why should you give any consideration to your partner’s interests? After all, in all likelihood, after the relationship does end you won’t see ‘em again. And, in all likelihood, at that point your partner probably won’t place a high importance on your interests. By placating your partner's interests, you aren't satisfying yours; you'd be working against yourself. And that's jsut crazy, right?

You might be thinking, at this point, that you should just be honest and tell your partner: “Look, I’m not happy in this relationship. So we can either end it, you can change to make me happy, or we can modify it to a ‘fuck buddies’ type thing until one of us finds someone new… whatdaya say?” Maybe I’m out of touch with society, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that, in all likelihood, the answer will be “it’s over ya jerk.” And if that turns out to happen you haven’t served your best interests. (Since you'd probably then be sexless until you manage to find someone new willing to go down on you.) So we're back to square one. But being open like this is fair, right? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily what you should do. Should we put a greater importance on what's fair or morally right than what's in our own individual self interest? (This is my whole point people.)

I went through this whole discourse to frame my key question de jour: At what point should you stop putting other people’s interests ahead of your own? I’m no ethicist, but maybe this is a case which highlights the limits of morality. Surely there's a limit to the ethical standards to which we should be held. After all ethics, to be meaningful, has to be rational; and it can’t always be rational to put the interests of others before your own. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Burning Bush.

(Everyone else, from Fareed Zakaria to Bono, gets to pass some sort of verdict on the last 8 years of President Bush, extolling his vices and cursing his virtues. I realise, therefore, that to write ANOTHER 'Bush legacy' post is an idea that's as contrived as the High School Musical franchise. However, I never met a bandwagon I didn't like and I figure whats good enough for Bono is good enough for Nelder. So here it is, a 'Bush legacy' post. Originality is for sissies.)

I often LOL at the adjectives that have been attached to famous leaders throughout history. Sometimes, the adjectives are pretty dull, and don't really reflect that leader's accomplishments, or place in history. Alexander of Macedon, the great Greek king who smashed the Persians and tripled the size of Greece, had to make do with being called Alexander 'the Great', which sounds like he won first prize in a poetry contest. Alexander the Totally Bad-ass would have been far more sufficient. At the other end, we have Vlad III, the blood-thirsty tyrant of 15th century Romania and later the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula. He became remembered as Vlad the Impaler, a name so infinitely cool that if you didn't know better you'd think he was a villian in a Tarantino film. Even some fictional characters have inherited this NAME + DESCRIPTION tradition, sometimes for better....and sometimes for worse.

Where am I going with this? Well, besides from showing off my knowledge of Romanian history, I want to pose a question. In 100 years time, when A Word on Failure is being updated by my great grandchild (Alexandra Hugochavez Nelder-Putin), I wonder what adjective will be attributed to the US of A's outgoing Presidunce, George Walker Bush?

Hopefully, history still remembers him as Bush the Failure. A man whose policies have led to the complete and total decimation of American prestige and respect on the global, left the United States embroiled in two wars that have been so badly mishandled that thousands of American, Iraqi and Afghani lives and trillions of dollars have been wasted, and whose reckless handling of the economy left the US and the rest of the world hurtling towards a recessionary fuckfest deserves no less.

There have been recent attempts to exonerate him for his short-comings, portray him as a man whose presidency and vision for America was sidelined by the 9/11 attacks, and that the worst excesses of the Bush Administration (the PATRIOT ACT, the Guantanamoification of prisoners of war, the attempts to snatch more power for the executive branch of government) were all necessary evils in the pursuit of national security. These attempts are not only weak, they are an affront to the memory of those killed both in the World Trade Center attacks, and in the subsequent 'War on Terror'. One of the Bush Administration officials (Rumsfeld?) once declared they were fighting an enemy that didn't play by the rules ,and so to obey the normal rules of conventional warfare (like the Geneva convention) would be like America fighting with one hand tied behind its back. But the fact it played by rules was one of the things that made America, and American democracy great, and by showing an almost carefree attitude to trampling over the rule of law, the seperation of powers and a plethora of civil liberties Bush degraded and corrupted the American ideal beyond recognition. Not only that, but the ham-fisted way that the Bush administration handled the peace in both post-Saddam Iraq and post-Taleban Afghanistan, was a show of supreme arrogance, and it can only be hoped that the thousands of extra lives lost haunt Bush to his grave.

But while Bush does not deserve to be exonerated for his incompetence, neither should he be villified. Among the far-flung corners of the left, Bush will be remembered as the war-mongering criminal who invaded Iraq to get his grubby hands on some sweet Middle Eastern crude oil. Or as the rich white prick who didnt give a flying fuck as hundreds of thousands of black people drowned in the floodwaters of New Orleans. But this is wrong. Bush does not deserve to be remembered as evil. He does deserve, however to be remembered as incredibly stupid. And maybe, a little too trusting.

I have defended the Bush Doctrine (the right to a pre-emptive strike against a nation before it attacks you) in a previous post. But Bush showed an almost eager-to-please willingness to trust the intelligence, uncritically accepting the vital evidence he used to make the case for war, rather than demanding to know the sources. In Hurricane Katrina, his administration's effectiveness was shredded for two reasons - the gutting of the civil defence budget on idealogical 'private-sector' grounds, and Bush's blind faith in his officials to do the job without him needing to be the overbearing 'Big Brother'-type boss. The economic crisis was a result of Bush's failure to really grapple with the issue, instead outlining some vague idealogical agenda for the economy (regulation bad, innovation good) and placing it the trust of free-market idealogues, with no balancing influence.

But if you really break his character down, the two most defining attributes of Bush are this. One, Having trust in the ability of the people he appointed to do a job and two, having strong philosophical groundings. And when you think about it, those aren't exactly bad characteristics to have. It just turned out that the former alcoholic with a tendency to get his words hopelessly muddled who looked hopelessly out of his depth when he debated Al Gore in 2000 WAS in fact hopelessly out of his depth. But not evil, just hopeless.

So, how should history remember Bush? Bush the Useless, definitely - maybe even as Bush the Worst.

But maybe also.....as George the Well-Intentioned.

Alex

They Shouldn’t Call it “Pop Music”, They Call it “Poop Music”

“Do I listen to pop music because I'm miserable or am I miserable because listen to pop music?” (John Cusack)

Back in tha day there was a backlash against “that hot new sound”: rap music. A flurry or columnists, journalist, politicians, concerned citizens, and future bloggers (read: puritanical uptight sissies) raised a stink. They complained about obscene lyrics, how you couldn’t understand what was being said or what it meant, and the general offensive tone and beat of the music itself. A similar sort of backlash struck the emerging heavy mental scene as well. Both musical styles, more or less, successfully defended themselves in the court of public opinion, growing in popularity and legitimacy as musical styles with genuine talent.

But there still exists offensive music that shouldn't be allowed. While these songs might sound like rap, metal, or whatever, they are, really, instances of “pop music”. They’re typically boo-hissed by genuine fans of music. Here I wanna explain why, despite how you feel about gangsta rap (or other “offensive” music), the real offensive music is valueless pop music.

First off, I wanna differentiate between “pop music” and “popular music”. The latter is music that becomes popular in virtue of its own goodness; the former is thrust in with popular music despite not gaining notoriety of its quality. Pop music, instead, is designed and promoted as that which is (or, according to some, should be) popular. Here I’m only arguing against “pop music”. (“Popular music” is okay.)

While pop music got started back with, I dunno, the Monkees, it seems that pop music has exploded in the last decade or two: It has been growing in presences and "legitimacy" and there’s now a constant influx of new “artist”; from Brittney Spears, to Lady Gaga. These pop artists are often at the fringes of legitimate musical styles; they aren't really rap, metal, or whatever simpliciter. Instead they're bastardized creations made by hacks that are pushed and promoted by record labels. And there are instances from all kinds of music genres: the Theory of A Deadman types representing Rock’n’Roll; the Chingy types representing Rap; the Aqua types representing Electronica; and the Ashlee Simpson types representing…. I don’t even know what. A lot of these people don’t write their own music, or do any kind of performing other than singing (or, I should say, lip syncing; see Simpson link). Their tunes are manufactured and polished by producers working behind the scenes; working not for the art of it, but to fabricate the next “hit” to sell and make another cool million bucks. These crappy musical products are designed to be (one way or another) attention getting. It’s superficial and “soulless”. This is a case-in-point of where capitalism and Big Business have tainted the arts and our culture.

So why hasn’t “pop music” faced the same persecution as other kinds of contemporary music? Anyone that’s not a 14 year old girl and has an I.Q. over 40 can’t deny that pop music has no redeeming qualities. I mean, come on, it’s obviously inherently crap. Sure, a lot of it might not be offensive in the same say Metal and Rap was accused of being offensive. But pop music is offensive in its shittyness and fakeness (which, perhaps, is such a subversive kind of offensiveness that it gets missed; which would make it a more dangerous kind of offensiveness). It’s overly commercialized nature certainly doesn’t help it. By tolerating pop music we’re allowing the record industry to dictate to us what’s “cool” and what we should listen to; by tolerating it, we’re acting like sheep.

But let’s face it, we like pop music (even though we’d never admit it). It’s catchy. And a lot of it just somehow make you wanna dance. I mean, I can dance like John Travolta, but I hate to do it. Nevertheless, a lot of pop music just makes me wanna get out there and crunk up a storm. Does this redeem it? Not at all. Despite the superficial attractiveness some pop music might be conceded as having, its other detrimental qualities surely trump that and make it frustratingly objectionable. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Why we suck : The failure of NZ National Identity - Part Two

Here it is, Part 2 of my two part diatribe on New Zealand nationalism. As I mentioned in my previous post, Its a rehash of an essay I wrote for university, which is why the tone is so formal (and some would say, dreary). I've sprinkled it with italicised commentary, in part to make it more interesting, and in other part to try and cover up the gross logical inconsistences that developed towards the end of this essay, which I admit was written in a mad panic the night before it was due. I'll be back to writing more flippant, less essayish peices next time. After all....Its nearly inaguration day, baby!

In my last post, I talked ad nauseum about civic nationalism, that’s the idea that nationalism gets invented by symbols and traditions. As I mentioned in that post, civic nationalism is my favourite, its intellectually satisfying and doesn’t rely on some wackjob assumptions about people developing a shared sense of togetherness at some point in the distant past, probably when they had to join a team to fight off dinosaurs. But....then I worked out I could make some points better if I pretended I like the theories of ethnic nationalism or cultural nationalism. So, in a victory for quasi-academic flip-floppery, I converted. Ethnic/Cultural Nationalism 4 lyf!

Anthony Smith suggests that nations arise out of close ethnic ties; that core networks of culture and language must form the building blocks of any national identity, ahead of the national symbols and stories beloved by the civic nationalist (which I talked about in my previous post, to great acclaim and the applause of thousands) . To claim that New Zealand has a basis in ethnic nationalism would be to claim that New Zealanders are rooted in a historical and cultural community that exists independently of rituals and symbols, such as the anthem and the flag. But a sense of value in a ‘New Zealand culture’ is superficial at best. The OE (Overseas Experience) pilgrimage to Europe undertaken by young New Zealanders is seen as a chance to be imbued with a deeper understanding of their cultural roots. Since the early days of colonisation, New Zealand has been derided as a cultural backwater, devoid of intellectual tradition and a shared philosophical bond among citizens. Throughout the 1970’s the closest embodiment of the ethnic New Zealander was the booze-soaked, anti-intellectual caricatures of Lynn of Tawa and Fred Dagg. (I wonder if this was the first and only time in history that a supposedly academic essay referenced the vile Ginette McDonald). Arguably, this situation has now improved a deeper appreciation of New Zealand’s local entertainment industry, literature and academia now exists. (ref: Game of Two Halves) But the ethnic nationalist must still struggle to fashion a deep-rooted historical bond amongst a people who remain remarkably derisive of their own history.

This idea segues into the starkest challenge to the expression and mobilization of nationalism in New Zealand. Until now I have discussed nationalism with an explicit focus on the culture and symbols of European, or Pakeha New Zealanders; the descendants of colonisers. This is deliberate, as a nationalist discourse in New Zealand often fails to account for the cultural claims of the indigenous Maori community. (Oooo...here comes the controversy)

To try and reconcile Maori ideals of sovereignty with the justification for the sovereign nation that is espoused by the principle of self-determination is difficult. Maori society rests on the principle of a collective ownership between the Maori community and the land. It would have been inconceivable for traditional Maori conceptualize New Zealand in terms of the principle of self-determination, which is built on the Lockeian construct of obtaining ownership and mastery of a land's resources by dint of your efforts in cultivating the land. However, this cannot be allowed to detract from the legitimacy of Maori claims to New Zealand territory. Will Kymlicka (this poor guy would have got sooo beaten up at my high school with a last name like this) determines nationalism in relation to distinct cultures. For Kymlicka, a nation is defined by its culture, with the state inherently favouring a certain distinct cultural tradition. He argues that in settler societies we can distinguish the nationhood claims of immigrants, who in choosing to emigrate have forgone the right to belong to a nation based upon their original culture, and indigenous communities, who have deep cultural, spiritual and historical links to a territory and who were involuntarily incorporated into settler-societies via conquest or colonisation. He argues that these groups are worthy of the status of nation and some form of self-determination over a given territory as a result. (in other words, its more legitimate for Tame Iti to claim Maori sovereignty over Tuhoe, than it would be for Pansy Wong to claim sovereignty over Howick)

Settler-societies have been reluctant to consider the self-determination claims of indigenous national minorities, often arguing that because they were immigrant nations themselves they had no indigenous population. However there has been a major awakening among settler-societies in recent years in recognizing indigenous peoples as peoples with cultures ‘different from, but not inferior to their own’, and recognizing past injustices. The Australian nation-state, built on dispossession of Aboriginal peoples, has felt increasingly pressured to make amends for its violent colonial past (and the Lost Generation, and the Extermination of every single Aboriginal Tasmanian, and the White Australia Policy, and Baz fucking Lurhmann). The result for Australia, on display during 2008’s ‘Sorry Day’, is a nationalism that is less triumphant, and more reflective, mournful and based on reparation and reconciliation. (In truth, that’s a lie. Australians, on balance, remain arrogant self-righteous prats. But my lecturer was Australian, and I am not above self-censorship of the truth in pursuit of a higher grade...)

To its discredit, Kymlicka’s cultural nationalist model has surprisingly little relevance in a New Zealand context. A central tenet of New Zealand nationalism, used as a major drawcard in the international community, is New Zealand’s ‘racial inclusiveness’. New Zealanders are proud of the haka performed before the start of an All Black test match, and official meetings begin with the traditional Maori powhiri. (again, I’m lying. Most NZ Europeans think the powhiri is a waste of time, and could easily be replaced with a handshake and a smile. But, I couldn’t make the Haka my only example of ‘Stuff White People like’, and by this stage it was 3 in the morning and I was running out of brain). While this is a positive step in fostering cultural awareness, it is no substitute for legitimate self-determination. However for many New Zealanders, tacit approval for selected Maori rituals within an Anglo-centric framework as seen as the high-water mark for the Maori role in New Zealand national identity, not viewed as a barely acceptable minimum.

Intense divisions have erupted in New Zealand society concerning Maori-Pakeha relations. The Foreshore and Seabed controversy in 2004 saw Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi clash with the idea that ‘a holiday at the beach’ was an integral part of the New Zealand lifestyle that was under threat as a result of Maori ‘special rights’. Likewise the Maori-specific seats in the New Zealand Parliament are seen as a legal sanctioning of an unfairly separatist party found on illegitimate claims of ethnicity and not as they should be, as the only avenue for actual self-determined representation available to Maori in New Zealand. (In these two sentences I make more value judgements than Jerry Falwell did in his whole life. I’m happy to defend them, should any one wish to challenge my ‘limp-wristed hand-wringing PC-view’) These are just examples of a wider clash of principles between indigenous Maori and a settler society, tentatively forging a new identity for itself. As I have shown throughout my essay, this ‘Kiwi’ culture is the child of confused and contradictory expressions of civic nationalism, and the slow erosion of New Zealanders ethnic ties to the origin countries of their ancestors. Regardless of its foundations however, a recognition of the Crowns obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi to strengthen Maori culture is often seen as a direct weakening of this idea of ‘being Kiwi.’ ( I sort of gave up here, and introduced the term Kiwi without fully defining it. But think of ‘Kiwi’ in terms of stuff like L&P, sauce in a tomato shaped bottle and other kitchsy stuff like that. To be a Kiwi, it must be necessary that you support the All Blacks, drink a dozen Steinlager, and beat up the successful kid. One day I will write a post that compares the McDonalds Kiwiburger to Satan. Then you’ll see what I mean.)

This essay has offered an overtly negative assessment of the state of New Zealand nationalism. Its civic nationalism fails to define a set of national symbols and stories that promote a logical clear structure for an imagined community; its ethnic nationalism is based on a historical bond of cringing over New Zealand culture and a cultural nationalism where Maori and Pakeha remain ideological poles apart. But despite my pessimistic tone, there remains cause for optimism. There is, has always been, and will continue to be loyalty to the idea of ‘New Zealand’. (Hardly optimistic, its kinda like saying to the kid who got bullied at school ‘well, at least those bullies aren’t calling the mere fact of your existence into question’) A communal sense of pride has always been felt by New Zealanders in the achievements of its people on the world stage. (And a communal sense of ‘lets-beat-the-wife’ during All Black World Cup fails) And in the vast majority of cases, Maori-Pakeha tension is not based on racism, but on an awkward misunderstanding of values. The underlying principle of the emerging idea of ‘Kiwi’ is to be seen as good-hearted, practical, commonsensical and tolerant. (This was a fucking cop-out, show me a person who wants to be seen as bad-hearted or intolerant. The whole problem with the idea of Kiwi-ness is that it claims that New Zealanders that aren’t singing from the Gospel according to Murray Mexted, going to the beach, wearing jandals and eating hot chips in white bread aren’t really NZ’rs at all. It’s inherently intolerant. I have no idea why I wrote that sentence in my essay. It makes no sense, and undermines my entire argument. I blame it on a second class education in the NZ public schools system.) There remains a continuing willingness by both Maori and the descendants of colonisers to work together. New Zealand is a nation facing serious questions about where it has come from and where it is going. Happily, these are questions that New Zealand’s national spirit has the strength to confront and answer. And when they are confronted, the bonds of New Zealand nationhood can only grow stronger. (and they shall sing from the heavens, HALLELUJAH!)

Alex

Why we suck : The failure of NZ National Identity - Part One

H'okay, the four people that regularly read this blog will notice that the style of this post is radically different from most of the stuff I write. There are a lot of polysyllabic adjectives, and a dearth of LOLs. This doesn't mean that I've embarked on a mid-blog crisis and am desperate for respectability - I abandoned that quest around the time I started babbling about the morality of eating kittens. On the contrary, I've actually cheated in writing this blog post, and tried to update an essay I wrote last year on the state of nationalism in New Zealand. I was going to save it for Waitangi Day, but it seems kinda topical at the moment - not only is it one year to the day since the death of Sir Edmund Hillary, the finest beekeeper ever to grace a banknote, but I also had a really really really really long chat with a couple of Americans about national identity in the US and NZ, and I wanted to hear other peoples opinions on the topic generally. So...I apologise for the length, and some of the longwinded wank that it is a signature of the AlexAcademicEssay, but I've tried to make it more suitable for blog form AND split it into 2 parts to make it easier - the first part on AngloSaxon Identity and the 2nd on the conflict between this and Maoridom. As usual, I'd love to hear what you think, even if what you think involves the words 'talentless' and 'hack' in the same sentence.

Alex

New Zealand nationalism is a construct built upon defective foundations . (Apparently in an academic essay, just writing ‘New Zealander’s, on balance, suck’ would not have been kosher. ) Loyalty to the NZ state exists, of course, but the creation of a stronger sense of nationalism (like the salute-the-flag OnenationunderGodism of the US of A) is undermined by two significant barriers. Firstly, New Zealand’s short history. New Zealanders remain divided on the whether their country is an antipodean offshoot of Britain, or a vibrant South Pacific nation assertively flaunting its Anglo-Oceanic identity. Viewing New Zealand from the perspective of a civic nationalist, the conclusion is a people suffering fundamental disagreement over symbolism; the flag is seen by many as an unloved relic of an increasingly irrelevant past and many of the national symbols and stories have two inherently contradictory meanings. But even if we adopt the lens of an ethnic or a cultural nationalist we see that New Zealand is limited by a cultural cringe and an implicit rejection by the New Zealand people of the moral worth of their own brand of nationalism. Secondly , and more controversial (and the stuff that you will have to wait for my NEXT post to read) has been the development of a populist ‘Kiwi’ nationalism, which fails to recognise legitimate Maori claims to self-determination, or even attempt to understand the Maori conception of national identity. While New Zealand’s national image overseas projects a racially harmonious New Zealand, it is a fiction. The few rituals and customs that are associated with Maori have been carefully cultivated to give a different meaning in a wider New Zealand context than their meaning in Maori culture. In addition, race relations issues have in recent years provided a major test for New Zealand, as the descendants of colonisers are unable to reconcile their idea of ‘being Kiwi’ with Maori claims.

So what exactly is this concept of nationalism that I plan to bang on about ad nausem throughout this series of posts. I’ll start, as any aspiring civic nationalist would with Benedict Anderson’s famous definition of a nation as an ‘imagined political community that is inherently limited or sovereign.’ OBVIOUSLY, New Zealand falls within this definition. New Zealanders do feel innately connected (that’s the imagined part) to others who associate in some way with the geographical spread of islands that constitute New Zealand (limited), and legitimize a national government that purports to exercise, in their name, sovereign jurisdiction over this territorial space (sovereign!). New Zealanders feel a duty towards other (perceived) New Zealanders and seek a nation which upholds individual rights and a distinct New Zealand understanding of the good life.

But Anderson’s definition is pretty damn broad, a bit like defining a cat as ‘an animal with four legs AND a tail). Eric Hobsbawm , who not only has one of the best last names EVER ,does a little better, defining it as a series of ‘invented traditions – a set of practices, normally governed by tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual and symbolic nature, seeking to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past’. This idea of nationalism is more pragmatic; suggesting that a nation is defined by its national stories, myths and tradition. But it is when we consider this framework of nationalism that New Zealand’s brand of nationalism appears weak in its expression.

To consider how New Zealand nationalism is expressed is to consider a history of fundamental social changes, and an ever-shifting set of national priorities, values and ambitions. ‘New Zealand’, as it is commonly viewed in international discourse and in the national imagination began its history as a colonial outpost of Britain. It has evolved from a nation which relied almost exclusively on Mother Britain to meet its economic and security needs to a nation that considers itself a ‘confident and diverse Pacific nation’ (Helen Clark’s words not mine!) which is not afraid to disagree with its allies on major international issues (like we didn’t go to Iraq, and our anti-nuclear stance sunk any chance of America inviting us over for a game of battle ships). Culturally, New Zealand is moving away from its traditional agricultural-based societies with foundations in small rural townships to a more urbanized population which emphasizes New Zealand’s innovation in the international marketplace. There appears to be a new found cosmopolitanism, the consensus of a ‘meat-and-three-veg ‘diet and an entertainment trifecta of rugby, racing and beer have been replaced by a salad bowl of differing values and cultural practices, underpinned with greater emphasis on the significant culturaluniqueness of the Maori. Even the political culture of New Zealand has undergone major upheaval, the ‘cradle to the grave’ welfare state carefully cultivated by successive Labour and National governments since the 1930s were rent asunder by the economic restructuring of the 1984 Labour Government; where the deregulation of the private sector emphasised the values of competition, diversity and individualism over the more traditional values of consensus, conformity and collectivism.

I do not wish to make a value judgement on whether these changes to the New Zealand sense of self will have negative or positive impacts on the country. Indeed, the reader is free to vehemently disagree with the imagery I have used to describe the modern New Zealand nation (in fact, pleeeeeeease tell me if you vehemently disagree, blog comments are to me what Speights is to Jesse Ryder). What I am attempting to show is the difficulties faced in attempting to define what ‘being a New Zealander’ means. Furthermore, despite the dramatic shifts in New Zealanders’ sense of New Zealand, it has not been accompanied by a recasting of the national myths, and the emblems and symbols that traditionally defined the nation are appearing increasingly irrelevant and increasingly inadequate.

New Zealanders, like citizens of any other nation, are raised on stories that legitimize certain value systems and conventions of behaviour as being values that embody the nation. These include the sacrifices made by young soldiers at Gallipoli, being the first nation to give women the vote, and great All Black rugby matches against old Northern Hemisphere rivals. The greatest of these stories, is that of New Zealand beekeeper, Sir Edmund Hillary, being the first man to reach the summit of Mount Everest. At various instances in New Zealand history, this story has been used to perpetuate the myth of the tough, versatile ‘Kiwi bloke’ or to underlie the humanitarian nature of ordinary New Zealanders (with regards to Hillary’s later work in Nepal). However the most noticeable contradiction is that while in 1953, the ascent was held up as an example of New Zealand’s continued fealty to Empire, and a coronation gift to the new Queen of England, it is now viewed as the defining moment where New Zealanders realised the bonds to Mother England could be broken, and that the nation of New Zealand was strong enough to stand alone.

This malleability of New Zealand ‘tradition’ underlies a key problem in expressing New Zealand nationalism. While New Zealand society has undergone a complete overhaul, its short history leads to a dilemma, a need to link to the past, but also a need for the legitimizing foundations of the nation to reflect the current ideals of ‘New Zealand’. The situation that has arisen in New Zealand as a result of the contradictions that plague their myths is that it is plausible for two equally patriotic citizens to reach starkly different conclusions on what it means to be a member of the New Zealand community. This leads to serious issues when considering the symbols that underpin civic nationalism.

Hobsbawm states that the National Flag is one of the core symbols which proclaim the identity and sovereignty of a nation.. In the United States, the flag is held both in literature and in civic life as a sacred article, expressing ‘the beliefs that Americans share, belief in law and peace and the freedom which sustains the human spirit’. (Justice Kennedy’s words, not mine!) To some, to look at the flag is to grasp the soul of a nation and its peoples. (Fuck, what part of my brain did that flowery bile spew from? The medulla oblongwanker?) However, while the New Zealand flag remain deep significance for returned soldiers who fought under its banner, for a growing number of New Zealanders the flag evokes dispassionate deference at best, open scorn at worst. The flags likeness to Australian is a butt of jokes for comedians and a serious debate rages over whether the flag should retain the Union Jack, and a reminder of New Zealand’s former colony status. More and more New Zealanders are choosing to associate with an alternative flag of a silver fern on a black background.

The idea that in a post-colonial settler society, one of the most incontestable manifestations of nationhood can become a battleground over the nation’s future direction is not limited to New Zealand. Canada replaced its Union Jack-adorned ‘Red Ensign’ flag with its well-known Maple Leaf design in 1965, but it came as the result of a long and protracted debate. In 2008, this symbol is the most compelling expression of Canadian identity. While this is perhaps not an argument for a new national flag, it suggests that New Zealand must foster the debate of what it would like the symbol it projects to the world to represent. (The only reason I even bothered to write this is because I like to show off the fact I once won a six-week trip to Canada, and now enjoy pretending I’m an expert on that godforsaken place...)

The essay so far has discussed New Zealand nationalism through the lens of a civic nationalist, as it appears the most intellectually satisfying explanation for the existence of national rituals and traditions. But if the conclusion we reach through looking at New Zealand as an ‘imagined political community’ is that New Zealand suffers a severe lack of imagination and direction, the conclusion reached when analysing New Zealand from an ethnic nationalist perspective offers even more fodder for the pessimist. And although I know you’re ALL superexcited to see just how much more pessimistic I can get, I’m very concerned about my gross flaunting of an acceptable word count...so you’ll have to wait for my next post.

Why I Hate Buses

“I'd rather go by bus.” (Prince Charles)

For those of you that read my "Repugnance of Eating" post, you might suffer a similar reaction to this one. Consider this forewarning, it's gonna be in the same vein. Stop reading now if you a naive idealist; convinced in the greatness of everything deemed "good". In fact, if that's who you are, just go kill yourself; your relentless positivity drives us normals crazy.

That foreword aside, I hate public buses. They're blue collar, gross, and undignified. But, for whatever reason, they're popular. Poor people use 'em cuz their cheap. Communists use them for the common good. Hippies uses them 'cause it's better for the planet. Really, though, these groups are all members of one uber-group: students. Students are stupid. They sleep in, go to uni, and sit around talking about the greatness of Maoism. All without putting in 15 minutes of genuine work per day. Don't get me wrong, studenthood is fantastic. I'm a relentless fan of learning and the general experiences that come with being a student. But that doesn't mean students are right.

Really, though, it's those student types that most often defend public transportation. The other people that have to patron buses don't. Blue collar types, for instance. They typically don't like the bus any more than I; they just have to take it. They can't afford a car or the fuel to run it. So they have to take the bus. And that's understandable. And okay for them. But for the rest of society - the non-blue collar types - having to sit near them on the bus is degrading. The jerkoff idealists might "boo hiss" me here for being a social elitist here, but the tenability of social elitism isn’t the issue at hand. I'm comfortable with people from different social classes mingling, but it should be done on their terms. People should mingle because they want to; not by force in virtue of having to share the same 40-foot limousine.

And that's really a stupid euphemism for busses - “40-ft limo”. In the words of Tui advertising, “Yea, Right.” It sugar coats over what they are - gross - and makes them sound pleasant (which they’re not). Even brand new busses look fresh out of the Soviet Bloc of yesteryear; made for utility and for the long haul. Ugly patterns designed to hide stains and graffiti. Plastic seats that require little or no maintenance. No air conditioning to cool it, which causes the fat ugly people inside to sweat and stink up the bus more than they normally do on a dreary rainy day. And nothing to quiet the noise of the motor or the world around you. Travelling should be quiet and comfortable; a way for you to get from your point of departure to the point of arrival in comfort and isolation; in a bubble.

Travelling in a bubble keeps you dignified. That's not to say that it makes you dignified. Whatever level of dignity you got when you get in your car you'll still have when you get out. But cars typically don't take away your dignity or sophistication. Sure some cars, like "boy racers" look (and are) stupid. But if you own one of those or freely enter one you look (and are) stupid to begin with, regardless of how you choose to get around. No reasonable person can say that buses are dignified. Because they ain't. You look like a chump when you wait at the bus stop and when you run to make it there on time; dignified ppl get around on their schedule, not that of the city transit authority. And no one looks dignified getting off a bus, no matter how nicely she's dressed. When you get off a busy you stagger a bit, having had to jump to the curb, and look around as if disoriented. Then, as soon as the bus loudly pulls away, you walk and try to present yourself as having been there the whole time; having no association with the ungodly abomination crowding our fine city streets.

The worst, tho, is the existence of the bus itself. I already went over the horrors of being forcibly associated with riff raff and the lack of basic creature comforts our advanced civilization has afforded us, but the real tragedy is the suffering inflicted on everyone so long as buses crowd our motorways. Even from the outside they're an eyesore. Brandished with fugly paint jobs and whored to the hilt with adverts. While noisy and smelly on the inside, those offenses are worse for those good folks in the convertible next to it. But this is when those jerkoff idealists pipe up again; moaning about the "benefits" to the environment. Gimme a break. Buses surely aren't improving my environment. And their detrimental qualities - the ones I've presented fairly here - outweigh any prospective green perks. I mean, if you're that concerned about the planet, walk. Or bicycle. Or get a horse. But you're ideals and attitudes shouldn't be forced upon the rest of us. We shouldn't have to deal with buses just because you say the planet needs them. In the defence of buses, the only plausible avenue is prudence. With out buses, how’s the blue collar worker suppose to get to the pulp mill? Or the punk to McD's to flip my burger? Or the crazy vagrant to his street corners downtown? They need the bus. But those students types who support the but business don't. So while buses may be a necessary evil of the modern world, that doesn't mean we need to like 'em. In that way, buses are kinda like taxes. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.

Not more Knots: Why the Scout movement ruins EVERYTHING.

In case you hadn't noticed, its now 2009. And the world still fails. The economy still sucks as much as the painful movie remake of 'Get Smart', and apparently Israel has decided its time to see the Gaza stripped. Worst of all, a judge has ruled that Blanket Man must wear underpants. This would be a perfect time for me to write a bitter polemic, outlining how we are all going to hell, and why the world is doomed. But, fuck it - I'm on holiday, so today I shall pick on some nerds.

And the Boy Scouts are geeks. I should know, I was one for seven years. I learnt to tie a bloody good reef knot. But I also learnt how to deal with virulent social ostracisation from the cool kids in the class. I was working towards my 'Teamwork' badge, they were figuring new ways to burn ants, steal the smaller kid's marbles and making a 'porn hut' in the long grass on the school field. I enjoyed the camps and the bush walks at the time, but I left the Boy Scouts at 13, a broken, disenchanted man. I wanted to be one of the cool kids, and to be one of the cool kids you couldn't be a Boy Scout. And because the Boy Scouts liked nature and camps and bush walks, if I wanted to be cool....I had to start littering.

I'm sure I wasn't the only kid who left Scouts in a vain attempt to get a primary-school girlfriend. I definitely wasn't the only kid who looked at the scouts, tying their 'woggles', saluting the 'flag' and bowing to 'Akela' (the adult who ran the Scout session is called Akela, after the jungle book), and thought 'What a bunch of saps!' And I definitely wasn't the only kid that stayed inside playing Sega Master System 2 because nature was, to use schoolyard lexicon, gay.

But nature isn't gay. (Although some trees are a little fruity - Zing!) White-water rafting, having crazy adventures in new and unexplored wildernesses, kayaking - that stuff's awesome, or at the very least its as cool as staying inside trying to escape from the Abominable Snowman in Skifree. My generation is the first generation to have grown up with gaming consoles, afternoon kids TV. My generation were also the first kids to look outside, and think it was lame. To a large extent, we associated the idea that nature was lame, and that protecting and preserving nature was lame with the idea that the Boy Scouts were lame. Considering we are apparently the last generation that can save the planet from a total environmental meltdown, the fact that most of us will be passing on the idea that the 'great outdoors' isn't really that much fun, and isnt really worth saving, if it means a much funnerer mall gets to be put in its place, is deeply depressing indeed.

There is a role for the Scout Movement in the 21st century, teaching kids that the great outdoors are worth saving, and hyping up the role that the individual can play in saving it. Scouts also extolls the virtues of personal responsibilty, but also with a social conscience to look out for those worse off than yourself. That's a pretty decent raison d'etre. But the problem with the Boy Scouts is that it remains firmly rooted in the 19th century, and the grand high mugwumps, or whatever the leaders of the Scout movement are called are even less enthusiastic about change than the Vatican. There's three major things crippling the boy scouts, and thats God, Mowgli and the Military.

Firstly God. As the lolvideo I found on Youtube, and embedded at the top of this post will attest. 'Reverence' is considered a fundamental tenet of the Scout Law. All those who wish to become new Scouts must swear 'to do their duty to their god'. What a bunch of crap. There is a time and place for young Christians to be reminded of the need to reverent to the Almighty, and that's Sunday school. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scout movement, may have considered that God went hand-in-hand with being a constructive member of society but this is an isolated and alienating position to hold in the modern, pluralist state. Not only that, but by actively reinforcing the idea that you can't be helpful, tolerant, trustworthy and generally good without being a Christian marginalizes kids that might otherwise be receptive to the virtues of saving nature and social responsibility, but dont want a lecture on the bible.

Next Mowgli. Scouts is littered with references to the Jungle Book. Cub Scout leaders are referred to as 'Akela's' after the leader of the Wolf Pack, and a Scout meeting normally involves a bizarre ritual of howling to the Akela. Again, Lord Baden-Powell may have felt that the themes and morals behind Rudyard Kipling's tome had relevance to ideas of collective responsibilty. But ours is a generation that associates the Jungle Book with Baloo singing the Bare Necessities, not as a hefty 19th century text. Howling to the leader no longer looks like a celebration of boyhood, it looks like a fucking after-school cult meeting. Worse than that, its lame.

Finally, the military. Baden-Powell's generation considered that 'good boys were well disciplined boys' and to attend a Scout meeting is to imagine you have entered North Korea or some other tin-pot country that still has compulsory military service. Scouts salute the flag, must iron their uniforms, swear fealty to the Queen, must be tidy at all times. To kids in 2008, this looks archaic, outdated and lame - things their parents make them do...not something that would freely choose to do after school. The role of Scouts must be to shows kids that nature is fun, and that helping others builds a better society, not drill kids that they are maggots who have a moral duty to respect their elders.

In conclusion, when most people look at new grim reports about climate change, or hear news that their is a mess of plastic the size of 2 United States floating about in the Pacific Ocean there is much handwringing about over-population and unsustainable use of resources. But, me - I blame the people who showed me and my friends that being sustainable and giving a damn was for weiners. A pox on ye, Scout Movement and every last woggle-wearing goody two-shoes muppet amongst you.

Alex