You wouldn't eat a Negro.

Given current market trends in New Zealand, I have a delicious product I am planning to promote and market through the hallowed pages of AWordOnFailure. This product will be a tasty confectionary treat, and I shall call it 'the Negro'. It will be shaped like a small thick-set man, and will be coloured entirely black, except for the lips - which shall be red. And thick. All of these delicious candy treats will come in only one flavour - WATERMELON. I have not yet decided on a slogan to market this entrepreneurial wet-dream of mine. At first I thought 'For a fun family time, you just can't beat a Negro' would be an assured success. But now I am more convinced by the merits of the slogan 'Become a slave to the taste!'. I am not entirely convinced by either, maybe I shall run a poll.

Obviously, I don't intend to do this - and I apologise profusely to anyone who may have been offended by the disgraceful racial slurs in the previous paragraph. It's interesting though, that once upon a time, it would have been socially acceptable to say that. Just as it was socially acceptable to sell this. Hell, I remember when a game of Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Mo, included the lyrics, 'Catch a nigger by the toe, if he squeals let him go...'. New Zealanders, in general, would probably like to think that in 2009, we are more enlightened than this. Well, we....aren't. In fact, there has lately been a huge public outcry over New Zealander's right to 'cherish' and 'treasure' an undeniably racist candy.

I'm referring, of course, to the Eskimo - a coloured and flavoured marshmellow bundle of deliciousness moulded into the shape of how candy-makers in the 1800's thought 'native wot lived in da cold' should look like. Read about it here, then read NZ's epic culturalrelations fail response here. In summary - Recently, an Inuit tourist to New Zealand, Seeka La VeeVee Parsons, raised the issue that the word Eskimo was no longer appropriate to describe her people, and - (it means 'eaters of raw meat') - and was now considered an offensive term in Canada and Greenland. Secondly, the shape of the candy, as a small little man in a snow suit with slitty eyes was an offensive depiction of her culture. Fair enough, I thought - while I've grown up with Eskimos and I find them delicious and had never really considered whether or not they were offensive, in hindsight, they are. Eskimos are my generation's 'golliwogs' - something that collective ignorance meant we never realised was offensive at the time , but in hindsight we will cringe that we ever found it acceptable. I thought that we should be thanking Ms. Parsons before we embarrassed our selves as a country further, and undermined our proud record on indigenous rights.

But if you take the response of the mainstream morons that have offered their comment on this issue on such auguste forums as stuff.co.nz - and more sadly, the manufacturers of the lollies themselves (Pascalls), one would imagine that Ms. Parsons urinated on the NZ flag, declared Phar Lap to be 'an Australian nag' before hitting Bronagh Key in the face with a signed picture of the crew of Alinghi. Ms Parsons has been told by the internet to 'grow up or go home' while Pascalls insists their will be no change to the design or name - and trusts that the New Zealand public will continue to enjoy Eskimos. Sigh. A number of arguments are offered in defence of the Eskimo. All suck.

The first is that 'the majority of people don't find Eskimos offensive'. True....because most people are not Inuit. A 'majority of people' have at one time or another supported slavery, a ban on homosexuality, no votes for women....the fact that a certain group of people find it offensive, and offer good, solid evidence as to why it is offensive to them should be enough to satisfy us.

The second argument is 'But we have been selling them for 64 years - it's a traditional part of the New Zealand culture!'. True, but I fail to see how this is an argument in support of the Eskimo. Just because an offensive thing has been around for ages - it doesn't follow from that that thing suddenly gains legitimacy and respect because of it's age. Take a ban on homosexuality. This was the norm for thousands of years, but that didn't make it right. It's hard for a society to admit the fact that we've been fucking up, and doing it wrong - but this doesn't mean we should keep acting in a way that is wrong or offensive, simply because its the way we have always done it, when there are no good arguments for the continuation of that practice.

Thirdly, the idea that 'We didn't know it was offensive, so that makes it ok.' I used golliwoggs earlier as an example of something that used to be socially acceptable, but now its frankly embarassing to admit that our parents had one as a toy when they were kids. (although Mr. Golly was my favourite character on Noddy, so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to call the kettle, er,black.) The fact that we, as a society, have no been made aware that Eskimos are considered offensive should mean that whatever we thought in the past is irrelevant. I mean, if I told you a 'Your Mom' joke, and you told me your mom was dead - well, I'd feel awful and I would apologise for bringing it up, but I meant no harm. But if I laughed and told another 'Your Mom' joke (cos dey heapz funni lol), well...I'd be a jerk.

Finally, there are people that concede that they are offensive, but defend Eskimos on the ground that they are delicious, which apparently transcends the shape, name,etc. These arguments are the worst. Being delicious, has never, is not, and will never be a defence to bigotry. I admit they are tasty, but I would get that delicious taste even if they were shaped as indescribable blobs. You could mould in the shape of Helen Clark's breasts and the taste would still be the same. In fact, they would be even tastier, as no Inuit would have been harmed in the enjoyment of my candy.

I'm advocating a ban on all Pascalls products until the Eskimo is pulled from the shelves of all supermarkets. But knowing the sad readership of my blog, that just means that I won't be eating lollies for long, long, long time. But some things are worth taking a stand on. The whole Western world is littered with outdated and offensive relics from an ignorant past, that present a demeaning charicature of indigenous peoples. Eskimos are just one example. Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot is another. And theres countless others here. If I was really principled, and really concerned - then I'd also have a problem with a certain provincial rugby team (located in a province that rhymes with Wankerbury) which is named after a series of bloody acts of agression, justified on the basis of religious intolerance, that resulted in the deaths of over 2 million innocent civilians, many in the Muslim world. But fuck it, that's a battle for my children's generation to fight.

Alex

my next post will be on kittens and sandwiches. promise.

Hey Fatty – Why don't You Have Another cheeseburger!?!

“Is she fat? Her favorite food is seconds” (Joan Rivers)

We all know that it used to be the case that smoking was socially acceptable; like 10 or so years ago. Before that, in the 60s or 70s, smoking was even considered cool. (Gaw!) But that no longer the case; now it's a social taboo. And one of the main reasons it's fallen out of favor is because of the harm it causes – not only to the smoker herself, but also to those around the smoker. It's to the point now that if your friend lights up you might say something like: “What the fuck are you doing man? That's a filthy habit and it's bad for you!” The funniest part about this is that the smoker will often reply: “Ya, dude, I know. Sorry. I totally gotta quit one of these days.” While it's her individual choice to smoke, it's not politically incorrect for the rest of us to chastise her for smoking; we're socially allowed to berate her for this lifestyle choice she's made.

But, oddly enough, it remains politically incorrect for us to single out and scold other harmful lifestyle choices people make; like being fat and unhealthy. I mean, if you see a 300 lbs woman walking away from the McDonald's counter with 3 Big Macs and an extra large coke (obviously all just for her), it's considered not okay for you say “Jesus, what are you doing lady?!? Are you looking to die of diabetes?”

The unhealthy lifestyle choices that lead to obesity, or even just being overweight, are harmful. But (like smoking) these lifestyle choices are also harmful to the rest of us. The health problems that come with obesity strain our health cares systems; our comfort is taxed when having to squeeze in to a seat next to a fat person on a plane or bus; and (if you'll let me be a lil crass) our field of vision is polluted by their lumbering size.

At the end of the day the problem with fat people stems, in large part, from the overindulgence culture of our contemporary western society – where quantity is valued over quality. And our social inability to address this problem is rooted in the trouble with political correctness – the idea that I'm not okay, and you're not okay; but we're okay, because it's okay for us to not be okay. Sorry, but that's bullshit. We should be held to the expectation to excel and be the best we can be (in all regards); not to resign ourselves to be content with our own mediocrity. We shouldn't be allowed to be crappy; by that I mean, political correctness shouldn't protect these kinds of decisions.

Sure, the tub lovers will pipe up with things like “some fattys can't help it, man, they're just big boned or it's in their genes.” And I don't contest that. But at the end of the day the fact that someone is big is a good indicator that they just aren't living a sufficiently healthy lifestyles. While this is an inductive inference, but it's a justifiable one. At the core my point is that they (as well as all of us, of course) should live active and healthy lifestyles. If someone looks big despite being appropriately healthy and active, that's okay (but unfortunate for him or her).

So, when you distill it, this post is less about what's wrong with fat people and more about what's wrong with poor lifestyle choices and the hypocrisy of considering some such choices acceptable (e.g. being unhealthy) while considering other to be not acceptable (e.g. smoking). We shouldn't be condemned for condemning the unhealthy people for being fat. 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.

Wrong Laws.

For those of you who are fans of my usual glib approach to life, the universe and everything - I apologise, because this isn't really one of those posts. Every now and then an article appears in a newspaper that not only infuriates me, but makes me physically ill that someone was paid to make racist, debased and dangerous remarks in a format that will be read and considered by hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. Michael Laws, former National MP, current mayor of Whanganui and all-round muppet, wrote an article in last weeks Sunday Star-Times that not only fits that previous description, but may have set a new low for gutter 'columnism' in any newspaper, ever.

The article was entitled 'The Liberal Shame' and if you want to read it, follow this link. But I'd strongly discourage you from reading it, because in reading it you would be giving his views a modicum of legitimacy that they not deserve. Laws's rants about the general inferiority of 'the brown underclass', declares that there were certain types of people who shouldn't breed (and if we cut through Laws's subtext, these people are generally brown and poor) and states, with all the hubris of a man who has spent three years in parliament AND got to be on Celebrity Treasure Island TWICE, that the 'liberal' approach to crime and raising families and building a society has failed. That he holds this opinion and deems fit to air it in the marketplace of ideas is bad enough, but in making his remarks through the prism of Nia Glassie's torture and murder, Laws shows a remarkably twisted propensity for cynical opportunism.

But I realise in making this criticism, particulary with the degree of vehemence, I will be amongst a very small minority of New Zealanders. The sad tale of 3-year old Nia Glassie, beaten, tortured, swung from the clothesline, put in the dryer has haunted and revulsed New Zealanders in a way that I have seen very few high-profile murder cases do. Many New Zealanders feel hatred and contempt for Nia's killers, and Laws in this respect was providing a summary of these views, albeit in a way that is spiteful, racist and socially poisonous.

I share this contempt for Nia's killers, I do not know how I could not. But I fail to see, as many of my fellow countrymen see, and as Michael Laws saw fit to publish, that the Nia Glassie case is proof that our society (or at least the poor, brown bits of it) has become more violent, and this 'extra violence' is the result of namby-pamby 'liberal' (say the word liberal with an extra helping of contempt for good measure) policy-makers, who have 'mollycoddled' violent youths and Maori society to the point where they share Nia's blood on their hands. Firstly, I maintain, but with an increasingly less secure conviction, that the recent spate of child abuse cases in the media are not inexorable proof of a society that is getting more violent. Of course there are more cases of such abuse appearing in the media in 2008 than in 1968, that's the inevitable result of a total increase in population. But a sudden spate of child abuse cases does not suggest to me that the underclass woke up one morning and decided to get more violent. It suggests that there have been a series of hideous coincidences throughout 2008. Or to be more cynical, it shows that media outlets -realising that stories about child abuse sell more papers - are getting more efficient at rooting these stories out.

But even if I am wrong with my previous point, and I'm not even certain myself as to whether I am correct, I'd argue that if society has 'broken down' in New Zealand's poorest, urban areas this definitely should not be seen as a failure of a system of 'liberal' policies. What seems more likely is that society is getting more violent not because the policies have been too liberal, because they have not been liberal enough. When you have a society that says that it is ok that people who are poor and the children of people who are poor can be denied opportunity because if they are poor, it is possibly a proxy for them being inferior (or worse, lazy) then of course you have widely disproportionate inequalities. And when you have a poorly educated 'underclass', with limited resources and no safety net provided by government to give them a competive go in life, and when you slash funding to groups that dispense advice and monitor first time parents then it follows that people who grew up in a culture of violence as a way of discipline will subject their children to the same abuse they suffered. When lobby groups call for the unfettered ability of parents to raise their children in whatever way they see fit, then it follows that more parents will see that what is unconcsionable abuse in our eyes as just showing loving and necessary discipline to their own children.

If a tendency towards 'more child abuse' in New Zealand society exists, and is not just the result of a few horrific coincidences then the people that have blood on their hands are not those who believe in 'education' and 'being politically correct'. The people who have blood on their hands are people like Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley, who slashed social welfare in New Zealand in the early 1990's, or people like Laws himself, who fail to see that screaming 'STERILISE THE POOR, AND DEATH PENALTY TO CHILD KILLERS' misses all sorts of points, most notably that you cannot solve a problem unless you are prepared to adress the underlying causes, rather than just create a media panic when the symptons of wider social failure appear in the cold, hard form of Nia Glassie's dead body.

It would be laughable, if it were not so reprehensible, that Laws attempts to play anthropologist, limiting the problem to that of a brown underclass, and littering his turgid dross of a column with overtones of racism - declaring that we have to stop getting all culturally sensitive and letting Maori think they can solve their own problems. It is true that almost all of the defendants in these cases have surnames like Kahui and Pailegutu, not Smith or Jones. And is true that in some Pacific Island cultures and maybe even in the Maori culture, a greater level of physical discipline is considered more culturally acceptable, which flies in the face of the rights of all children to be protected from harm. But what is not true is the brown parents are worse than white parents. It speaks volumes for the Anglosupremacist attitudes that pervades Laws peice that he begins by describing the underclass as a brown underclass and ends by describing it as feckless and stupid. It seems for Laws, and more sadly for numerous other New Zealand that 'brown' and 'stupid' and 'brown' and 'violent' are interchangeable adjectives. 'Poor' and 'uneducated' is perhaps more fitting, as this is a problem that needs to be solved with changing cultural norms in Pacific Island communities that child violence is not ok, and being willing to pump public resources into ensuring that at-risk families recieve government help.

Laws thinks the answer is forced sterilisation and the death penalty. For a man who spent much of 2008 declaring that the law that says you cannot smack your children for the purposes of correction, or that to save water resources showers were limited to 15 minutes was an overly invasive intrusion into private life by a nanny state , this is a quite remarkable turnaround. But it is a turnaround conducted with a nod to the inherent superiority of white people, and with a nod to the white and wealthy constitutents that elected him mayor of Whanganui. And it is a turnaround that while attempting to adress a very real and very worrying problem in New Zealand, arrives at almost the complete opposite to what is needed. He talks of the liberal shame, but he advocates a cynical, muddle-headed, disgraceful and illiberal sham. Shame on him.

Alex