Really appreciate this thoughtful response—no need to apologize for the length! And sorry for the slow reply. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have, and you’ve raised some great points that deserve unpacking.
I completely agree that nationalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it’s always shaped by its con…
Really appreciate this thoughtful response—no need to apologize for the length! And sorry for the slow reply. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have, and you’ve raised some great points that deserve unpacking.
I completely agree that nationalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it’s always shaped by its context. TPM’s nationalism is obviously rooted in historical injustice and indigenous rights, while NZ First’s version leans more into cultural preservation with a heavy dose of exclusionary rhetoric. That said, nationalism—regardless of where it comes from—tends to create "us vs. them" dynamics, and that’s what I’m trying to explore. The intention and impact may differ, but the pattern is there. At its core, nationalism is about defining who belongs, and by extension, who doesn’t. And in a world shaped by globalization, that often means positioning immigration as something that dilutes rather than strengthens national identity, explicitly or implicitly, deliberately or unintentionally.
On systemic racism, I don’t disagree with you at all. Institutional bias is real, and reports like last year’s policing report make that painfully clear. I actually did my Master’s in political science on institutional discrimination in New Zealand’s public service, and I’ve also experienced it firsthand. The challenge is how we talk about it. Some people hear “systemic racism” and assume it means individuals within the system are personally racist, rather than understanding that these biases are baked into structures, the institutions have a legacy of discrimination within their polices, and that is the challenge. That’s a structural problem we haven’t figured out how to solve yet. Here or in any post-colonial country. Its a hard nut to crack.
On affirmative action—I don’t oppose it outright, but I think it needs constant reassessment to ensure it’s actually achieving its intended goals. More importantly, it needs to be part of a wider structural approach—on its own, it can create more problems than it solves. The issue with affirmative action for Māori isn’t just political controversy; it’s that it prioritizes one historically disadvantaged group while excluding others who also face systemic barriers. That creates a hierarchy—if Māori are prioritized first, there is no space for other marginalized groups. The data shows Māori are disproportionately struggling, but the same is true for immigrants from non-English speaking countries in the Global South—especially from Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The question is: how do we address their challenges if every social and political grievance must first be resolved for Māori?
Racial hierarchies are problematic, but they’re not the wrong framing—it’s actually how New Zealand has deliberately structured its population data and policy frameworks. Not all post-colonial countries do this. Some organize populations by class, education, or income. New Zealand does it through cultural and racial categories, which is a political choice. None of these systems are perfect, but structuring policy around race/culture in this way creates its own set of challenges.
On healthcare—yeah, it’s absolutely about resources, but that’s the political paradox, right? At the end of the day, every government has to make financially viable trade-offs based on tax revenue and available funding. They can’t serve everyone, all the time. That’s where some left-leaning policies hit a wall—the trade-offs still exist, but they’re not always clearly articulated. And when healthcare prioritizes Māori and Pasifika communities (which, in many ways, is justified based on health outcomes), other minority groups inevitably get left out. I’ve studied this academically, but more importantly, I’ve lived it. This is a blind spot in both social and political discussions, and honestly, I might write a separate piece on it because it deserves a deeper dive.
And I love your point about rethinking our national symbols. We get so caught up in cultural debates that we ignore the structural barriers that actually determine people’s lives—like homeownership and economic fairness. The whole "number 8 wire" mentality is a great example. It’s romanticized as Kiwi ingenuity, but in reality, it often just means “do more with less” while the bigger systemic issues go unresolved.
Anyway, really appreciate the thoughtful kōrero, and I’ll check out that healthcare article. These discussions are why I write this newsletter. Hope to hear your thoughts on next week’s piece too!
Hey Henry,
Really appreciate this thoughtful response—no need to apologize for the length! And sorry for the slow reply. These are exactly the kinds of conversations I want to have, and you’ve raised some great points that deserve unpacking.
I completely agree that nationalism isn’t a one-size-fits-all concept—it’s always shaped by its context. TPM’s nationalism is obviously rooted in historical injustice and indigenous rights, while NZ First’s version leans more into cultural preservation with a heavy dose of exclusionary rhetoric. That said, nationalism—regardless of where it comes from—tends to create "us vs. them" dynamics, and that’s what I’m trying to explore. The intention and impact may differ, but the pattern is there. At its core, nationalism is about defining who belongs, and by extension, who doesn’t. And in a world shaped by globalization, that often means positioning immigration as something that dilutes rather than strengthens national identity, explicitly or implicitly, deliberately or unintentionally.
On systemic racism, I don’t disagree with you at all. Institutional bias is real, and reports like last year’s policing report make that painfully clear. I actually did my Master’s in political science on institutional discrimination in New Zealand’s public service, and I’ve also experienced it firsthand. The challenge is how we talk about it. Some people hear “systemic racism” and assume it means individuals within the system are personally racist, rather than understanding that these biases are baked into structures, the institutions have a legacy of discrimination within their polices, and that is the challenge. That’s a structural problem we haven’t figured out how to solve yet. Here or in any post-colonial country. Its a hard nut to crack.
On affirmative action—I don’t oppose it outright, but I think it needs constant reassessment to ensure it’s actually achieving its intended goals. More importantly, it needs to be part of a wider structural approach—on its own, it can create more problems than it solves. The issue with affirmative action for Māori isn’t just political controversy; it’s that it prioritizes one historically disadvantaged group while excluding others who also face systemic barriers. That creates a hierarchy—if Māori are prioritized first, there is no space for other marginalized groups. The data shows Māori are disproportionately struggling, but the same is true for immigrants from non-English speaking countries in the Global South—especially from Southeast Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. The question is: how do we address their challenges if every social and political grievance must first be resolved for Māori?
Racial hierarchies are problematic, but they’re not the wrong framing—it’s actually how New Zealand has deliberately structured its population data and policy frameworks. Not all post-colonial countries do this. Some organize populations by class, education, or income. New Zealand does it through cultural and racial categories, which is a political choice. None of these systems are perfect, but structuring policy around race/culture in this way creates its own set of challenges.
On healthcare—yeah, it’s absolutely about resources, but that’s the political paradox, right? At the end of the day, every government has to make financially viable trade-offs based on tax revenue and available funding. They can’t serve everyone, all the time. That’s where some left-leaning policies hit a wall—the trade-offs still exist, but they’re not always clearly articulated. And when healthcare prioritizes Māori and Pasifika communities (which, in many ways, is justified based on health outcomes), other minority groups inevitably get left out. I’ve studied this academically, but more importantly, I’ve lived it. This is a blind spot in both social and political discussions, and honestly, I might write a separate piece on it because it deserves a deeper dive.
And I love your point about rethinking our national symbols. We get so caught up in cultural debates that we ignore the structural barriers that actually determine people’s lives—like homeownership and economic fairness. The whole "number 8 wire" mentality is a great example. It’s romanticized as Kiwi ingenuity, but in reality, it often just means “do more with less” while the bigger systemic issues go unresolved.
Anyway, really appreciate the thoughtful kōrero, and I’ll check out that healthcare article. These discussions are why I write this newsletter. Hope to hear your thoughts on next week’s piece too!
Nat