Good read. It is tragic that he was killed in the name of anti-immigrant sentiment, when he seems to be a perfect example of an immigrant success story.
Either they are "unsuccessful" and "leeching of social benefits" or they are "successful" and "are stealing their jobs". It is a nationalist catch-22 were there are no successful immigrants, just insecure nationalists that feel disposable and in the process of "being replaced".
On the other hand if you are using "culture" as a proxy for "they don't behave like us the colonizers of New Zealand" it is even worse. < https://www.wikiwand.com/en/M%C4%81ori_people >
culture is constantly produced and changed, there isn't a "local culture"
Even more, the attack on first nations have been mostly on economic aspects, mainly the land trough colonization. (See Mariategui Seven Essays on the Peruvian Reality, specifically the third essay https://www.marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/7-interpreti..., original in spanish: http://resistir.info/livros/mariategui_7_ensayos.pdf )
The Maori culture is maintained by Maori people engaging in culture not merely by a museum exposing "the Maori cultre" and a society disenfranchizing Maori.
Obviously some cultures are better than others (in my and many other people’s value system) - do you prefer to live in NZ or Saudi Arabia?
“Ah, but that was then, minorities have it better now.” So the culture (by your definition) has changed then? Perhaps thanks to immigration and globalization?
I get nothing but praise for this, even from the people who grouch about "refusing to assimilate", even from people grouching about "refusing to assimilate" while eating hummus on tortilla chips.
In my experience, it's because I'm white. Like Trump's "good immigrants" from Norway.
The problem is when cultures disagree on the fundamental principles that run society. For example, Western civilisation (according to current mainstream views, which are not necessarily correct or sustainable) clashes mainly on freedom of speech (with Islam), rule of law (with China and other totalitarian cultures), rights of women & minorities (with Islam and Orthodox Judaism), sex (with Islam & Christianity), marriage (with Christianity & Islam) etc. I don't really see a solution except for one side to give up their principles, and I sincerely hope it's not the Western Civ (except when it comes to marriage, I'm very live and let live so I see nothing wrong with polygamy)!
I don't think this has anything to do with white supremacy or nationalism - but that those ideologies are easy to use as justification.
So in the end, the only way to solve this problem is to prevent dis-enfranchisement of the poor and vulnerable. UBI is my go to solution.
The abhorrent coward assailant wasn't even lumpen to begin with.
they'd have enough to persue some alternate goal, rather than be radicalized by those who seeks to prey on the disenfranchised.
I m not talking about this individual, but in general. If you look at people who suicide bomb, they are often poor, often have nothing to lose, and often is promised something in return (whether it's heaven in the after life, or benefits for their family?).
By taking away these sorts of people (and UBI is one way), it makes it harder to recruit for terrorism or other fundamentalist ideology.