Christchurch’s Press seems to take a perverse delight in belittling European New Zealanders in its immigration articles (or should that be advertorials?).
In a recent feature article on East Asian Immigration “Aiming for a multicultural NZ” Saturday November 17) the idea that East Asians should assimilate into the local culture is questioned on the basis that, well, European New Zealand culture is inferior:
“And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect Asian immigrants to turn themselves into “good sorts” if they want to be accepted – to dump several thousand years of culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around malls, barbecues, loud cars, touch rugby and a few beers.”
If this isn’t cultural loathing I don’t know what is – lets take the most banal aspects of European New Zealand culture and compare them with the best aspects of East Asian culture. You could easily turn this statement on its head and it would be equally valid.
“And what should integration mean? To put it bluntly, do we still expect European New Zealanders to turn themselves into cultural quislings if they want to be accepted – to dump several thousand years of Classical/Judeo-Christian culture and refinement and adopt a life revolving around overcrowded cities, monotonous menus, karaoke, Marshall arts movies and a snobbish dislike of manual labour.”
The article then takes a right-liberal tack and attacks the country for failing to integrate economically with non-Western markets:
“While other small nations like Iceland, Finland and Singapore have increased their average economic “connectedness,” as measured by exports and foreign investing, from 42% to 89% of gross domestic product over the past 15 years, we are the only developing country to exporting less, managing to drop back to 3 points to just 39%.”
In an article about immigration these examples are totally irrelevant, since when have Iceland and Finland been bastions of multicultural capitalism?
Finland has one of the lowest rates of immigration in the developed world. Its export success is more likely to do with its monocultural corporatism than cultural diversity.
While New Zealand should perhaps learn more about Asian markets, and offer more Chinese language courses, some Asian countries could also be doing a lot more to open up their markets.
Before Ms Clarke rushes into a free trade deal with the Chinese, shouldn’t she wait until China cuts back its farming subsidies and stops messing about with the Yuan?
The article also has some revealing comment from Auckland University Professor Manying Ip, who perhaps inadvertently, make a good case for avoiding a free trade deal with China:
“Ip says the rapid rise in mainland Chinese immigrants, which is only likely to increase if New Zealand manages to seal a free-trade deal next year, is creating new integration hurdles. Immigrants from ex-colonial nations like India, Hong Kong and Singapore had some preparation for living here. The mainland Chinese have not just greater language and cultural differences, but a worldview still shaped by years of communism.
“Ip says they can feel fiercely patriotic and defensive of their homeland. They also have the confidence of coming from the new world superpower. Where earlier Asian immigrants might have felt more pressure to fit in, the mainland Chinese could prove more assertive of their right to their own way.”
Having posed some serious questions on immigration, the article then predictably returns to banality with some inane comment from a left-liberal British immigrant:
“As for the British immigrant, what made her decide to come to Christchurch?The Englishness of the place surely? Well, actually it was discovering you could now get a good Thai takeaway here. A big change from the hicksville of just a few decades ago she says.”
Funny how these Islington types always end up looking for non-western cuisine in western countries. If you like Thai, what’s wrong with Bangkok?