Nationalism is an ideology designed by the chance of birth or birthplace. It debates ethnicity, culture, race, self-determination, heritage and hierarchy. Who deserves to be here and who doesn’t.
Im talking about nationalism from a political ideology perspective and I understand why being a small island nation might explain some of the tendencies, but I dont see it as a positive political framework to operate under, especially given the hyper diverse population we have. Parochialism to me sounds naive, small minded, what do you mean by that? Is that what you mean? I dont use that term too much so Im probably wrong
Well, for iwi Māori, I'd say it's parochial because their main concerns relate to their specific ancestral whenua.
TPM does get sucked into that nationalist stuff from broader indigenous political movement. A lot of that is rhetoric, though; despite the policy and press statements about a separate Parliament, there doesn't appear to be a massive amount of planning for a House of Lords or Scottish Parliament.
Dude, I think you missed the point entirely, but hey, who am I to know? I’m also pretty sure that as an English immigrant, you get cut a lot more slack than immigrants from Southeast Asia or non-English-speaking countries—but don’t worry, I’m not about to give you a crash course on how systemic discrimination works.
That said, if “Go home, Pom” is the worst you’ve had, consider yourself lucky. At least no one’s tried to deport your fish and chips.
Nz First has a pretty overtime history of xenophobia and racist rhetoric especially towards Asian immigrants, sadly it's not surprising that it's come up again.
I personally think it's hard to clearly label Te Pati Maori as a nationalist party but very easy to say the same about NZ First. It also depends on how you define nationalism. TPM are definitely left wing and advocate for maori issues primarily but that comes from the clear lack of equity that maori experience. Its hard to argue that maori are being prioritised in a nationalist way when all the statistical indicators would say they are still represented in a huge amount of negative statistics. This isn't to say that maori are incapable of having nationalist tendencies, of course everyone can that's the nature of being human. As someone who's grown up in a pretty multicultural environment older white people have consistently been the ones to push more nationalist rhetoric in my experience.
I do find it slightly odd to focus on TPM when NZ First has consistently pushed xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric since it's inception and is easily the most nationalist party.
Thanks, Henry. I appreciate your perspective, and I get where you’re coming from. What I’m trying to explore is that nationalist tendencies aren’t inherently left or right, and framing matters a lot in how we interpret them. It’s not necessarily better or worse depending on where a party sits ideologically—it’s about who is being centered, how, and at whose expense.
I do struggle with race-based prioritization in public services like health, housing, and education. There’s no doubt about the inequities Māori face, and their role as Treaty Partners, and I’ve read the stats, the research, and the historical context for the past 10 years diligently. I completely understand why policies exist to address those disparities. But at the same time, New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse, and for many new migrants, it’s difficult to reconcile the idea that their own struggles with institutional discrimination, economic hardship, and access to services are on a scale that makes them faith class citizens because they don’t belong to the historically colonized group.
Take healthcare as an example—if you’re a new immigrant, that’s is Muslim, southeast Asian ands female, who is another group who is consistent discriminated against as well, struggling to access a doctor, while seeing prioritization based on ethnicity, it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the intent is about equity. The question then becomes: how do we reconcile a past that undeniably disadvantaged Māori with a present and future that includes a far more multicultural population?
That’s not to say Māori advocacy is nationalist in the same way NZ First’s rhetoric on immigration has been, but it does raise an important debate about how racial hierarchies are being structured in contemporary policy and whether they can be sustained in an increasingly diverse country. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s worth questioning whether a system that prioritizes one racial group indefinitely is sustainable when the broader demographic landscape is changing so rapidly. What do you think?
I agree that nationalist tendencies are not inherently left—or right-wing; the difference is their purpose and how nationalism is used. Nationalism itself is not a simple definitional category but something that is applied differently by different movements, parties, and political ideologies. Right-wing nationalism differs from left-wing nationalism, although it can be hard to tell how a party uses nationalism within their political ideology and movement.
While rhetorically, the forms of nationalism used by TPM and NZ first are sometimes vaguely similar, it is essential to understand the context and background from which this nationalism came. I.e. NZ First and Winston Peters using language such as "two wongs don't make a white", as well as Shane Jones blatantly racism over the last week. Conflating this with a both-sides style argument, I think, is harmful. I'm sure there are xenophobic Maori voters and communities, but the same is true for all other demographics and should be something that is worked on; it's not ok when anyone is racist. This also should not take away from the more systemic racism that is arguably far more harmful whether people believe it exists or not. The recent policing report that was released last year showed the systemic nature of racism within policing; the same goes for a myriad of other state institutions. Again, this is not to say these institutions should be abolished but to say that this level of prejudice exists whether we want to believe it does or not. By and large, the people often most affected by this more systemic style of racism are Maori.
I'm also not sure if you've explained why you're against affirmative action for Maori. You've pointed in the past to liberal democracy values, but these are not inherently in opposition to affirmative action. We have affirmative action programmes for rural students wanting to go to university, women, and poorer communities. Why is doing the same for Maori any different? If the answer is race, then the question should be, why have Maori historically been so overrepresented in negative statistics? Is equity not the goal?
On the topic of healthcare, "...it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the goal is equity." This is an interesting sentence. To me, this is a question of resources. I can understand the feelings of discrimination, but the answer to this is better support for new immigrants and hard-to-reach groups. New Zealand's healthcare spending has decreased per person over the last several years. Is this the main problem? The issue seems to be a 'feeling' of discrimination rather than a real discriminatory policy. However, I fully acknowledge that navigating the New Zealand bureaucracy as a new resident is tough. However, as I said, we need better support for new immigrants, which again seems to be a resource question.
I also always think that discussions of racial hierarchies have severely negative connotations and foster a way of thinking that is incredibly unhelpful and unproductive. If Maori are prioritised on a system of racial hierarchies, then why are they (when looked at on a demographic basis) overrepresented in negative statistics? How is that being a top pyramid of racial hierarchy? This, to me, represents a logical fallacy type of argument, as does the one about prioritising Maori 'indefinitely'; I don't think that has ever been brought up because, at the current pace, it is so far in the future.
New Zealand has changed a lot as a country, but that doesn't mean the past is not topical or relevant. Our history should be taught more so that we can learn and develop our shared knowledge. If we want to talk about the significant changes to our foundation as a country, maybe we should question why we still call people knights, have a watermark in the corner of our flag and insist on maintaining a harmful number 8 wire mentality when it comes to infrastructure development. New Zealand is facing critical issues, and a large part of them come down to an outdated and unfair economic model that discriminates regardless of who you are based on homeownership.
Apologies for the extensive reply, but multiple points need addressing.
Who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ of a group is one of the deep and powerful human fundamentals - like sex and everything to do with it. Whether the group has border guards or is a group of girls at school sending someone to Coventry.
My hope for the Treaty is that over time we who are all here, now, on these islands in the bottom-left corner of the Pacific can see it as *our* symbol of us all choosing to rub along together.
You have made some good points Natalia, but I dont think Nationalism is actually an ideology. You could probably build an ideology around that feeling of Nationalism, but I think one can experience a feeling of Nationalism without needing any ideology to support it.
Thanks, Mark! I see what you’re saying, but I’m specifically talking about nationalism as a political ideology, rather than just a personal sentiment or cultural attachment. Of course, people can feel a sense of national pride without it being ideological—but once nationalism starts shaping policy, governance, political debates and societal structures, it moves firmly into the realm of political ideology.
I always right from a political science lens—looking at how nationalism functions politically, not just emotionally. And in that space, nationalism isn’t just a feeling; it’s a framework that defines belonging, prioritization, and exclusion, which makes it inherently ideological.
So I think we’re both right—nationalism as a feeling can exist without an ideology, but nationalism as a political force always carries one.
The word "ideology" is used in different ways, but what Natalia seems to be talking about is a set of ideas about who belongs to a nation and who doesn't. When Te Pāti Māori and their supporters say that we are not one, but two nations, each of which ought to govern their own affairs, this looks like an ideology. It's an ideology that makes ancestry (rather than simply citizenship) the key factor in deciding what nation you belong to: a view that political scientists call "ethnic nationalism".
Excellent commentary Natalia. Regardless of the semantics regarding nationalism and ideology it’s perfectly clear that associated the rhetoric polarised views have been very divisive in this country. One wonders if the stress of the last few years hasn’t exacerbated and accelerated those divisions.
NZ has always been a very parochial country - perhaps a bit less so nowadays but as a 12 year old immigrant in the 1960s I was constantly reminded that I didn’t belong - despite being white.
All of society is a kind of partnership in a fundamental sense but because it has become a contentious term I prefer to think of simple cooperation.
Throughout my life I have worked with the full range of ethnicities here and in Australia and the USA. By and large people work together harmoniously to get the project completed. There are sometimes nay sayers and those that argue and have other agendas. However the projects invariably get completed.
Idealistically one would hope that project NZ would similarly advance.
I suspect like many I have my doubts when tribalism appears to be on the rise and for some, the immigrants since 1840 are resented and unwelcome. Without goodwill and accommodation the future is unpromising.
There are different paths to being a New Zealander, including being born here.
I think that at the level below ‘I am a New Zealander, you are a New Zealander, we are all New Zealanders’ then tribalism is fine. We all belong to multiple tribes - family, work, ethnic origin, culture, sports, friends and so on.
Ahhh Shano. My guilty pleasure is reminding his anti-woke fanboys that Shane once nominated himself to lead the Labour party... watching their head explode lol.
I'd say that all New Zealanders tend towards nationalist tendencies as an island nation at the bottom of the world.
Nationalism sounds slightly extreme, though. I'd call it parochialism.
Im talking about nationalism from a political ideology perspective and I understand why being a small island nation might explain some of the tendencies, but I dont see it as a positive political framework to operate under, especially given the hyper diverse population we have. Parochialism to me sounds naive, small minded, what do you mean by that? Is that what you mean? I dont use that term too much so Im probably wrong
Well, for iwi Māori, I'd say it's parochial because their main concerns relate to their specific ancestral whenua.
TPM does get sucked into that nationalist stuff from broader indigenous political movement. A lot of that is rhetoric, though; despite the policy and press statements about a separate Parliament, there doesn't appear to be a massive amount of planning for a House of Lords or Scottish Parliament.
The Kotahitanga Parliament seems to be the popular model at the moment, and that's not a formal separate state, but more like an extended hui.
Rootedness.
Prejudice definitely goes in all directions and as you say dialogue leading to understanding is the way.
As an English immigrant I've been told, "Go home Pom, and take a couple of Dutchies with you". Racism isn't confined to Mexicans!
Dude, I think you missed the point entirely, but hey, who am I to know? I’m also pretty sure that as an English immigrant, you get cut a lot more slack than immigrants from Southeast Asia or non-English-speaking countries—but don’t worry, I’m not about to give you a crash course on how systemic discrimination works.
That said, if “Go home, Pom” is the worst you’ve had, consider yourself lucky. At least no one’s tried to deport your fish and chips.
Nz First has a pretty overtime history of xenophobia and racist rhetoric especially towards Asian immigrants, sadly it's not surprising that it's come up again.
I personally think it's hard to clearly label Te Pati Maori as a nationalist party but very easy to say the same about NZ First. It also depends on how you define nationalism. TPM are definitely left wing and advocate for maori issues primarily but that comes from the clear lack of equity that maori experience. Its hard to argue that maori are being prioritised in a nationalist way when all the statistical indicators would say they are still represented in a huge amount of negative statistics. This isn't to say that maori are incapable of having nationalist tendencies, of course everyone can that's the nature of being human. As someone who's grown up in a pretty multicultural environment older white people have consistently been the ones to push more nationalist rhetoric in my experience.
I do find it slightly odd to focus on TPM when NZ First has consistently pushed xenophobic and anti-immigrant rhetoric since it's inception and is easily the most nationalist party.
Thanks, Henry. I appreciate your perspective, and I get where you’re coming from. What I’m trying to explore is that nationalist tendencies aren’t inherently left or right, and framing matters a lot in how we interpret them. It’s not necessarily better or worse depending on where a party sits ideologically—it’s about who is being centered, how, and at whose expense.
I do struggle with race-based prioritization in public services like health, housing, and education. There’s no doubt about the inequities Māori face, and their role as Treaty Partners, and I’ve read the stats, the research, and the historical context for the past 10 years diligently. I completely understand why policies exist to address those disparities. But at the same time, New Zealand is becoming increasingly diverse, and for many new migrants, it’s difficult to reconcile the idea that their own struggles with institutional discrimination, economic hardship, and access to services are on a scale that makes them faith class citizens because they don’t belong to the historically colonized group.
Take healthcare as an example—if you’re a new immigrant, that’s is Muslim, southeast Asian ands female, who is another group who is consistent discriminated against as well, struggling to access a doctor, while seeing prioritization based on ethnicity, it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the intent is about equity. The question then becomes: how do we reconcile a past that undeniably disadvantaged Māori with a present and future that includes a far more multicultural population?
That’s not to say Māori advocacy is nationalist in the same way NZ First’s rhetoric on immigration has been, but it does raise an important debate about how racial hierarchies are being structured in contemporary policy and whether they can be sustained in an increasingly diverse country. I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but it’s worth questioning whether a system that prioritizes one racial group indefinitely is sustainable when the broader demographic landscape is changing so rapidly. What do you think?
I agree that nationalist tendencies are not inherently left—or right-wing; the difference is their purpose and how nationalism is used. Nationalism itself is not a simple definitional category but something that is applied differently by different movements, parties, and political ideologies. Right-wing nationalism differs from left-wing nationalism, although it can be hard to tell how a party uses nationalism within their political ideology and movement.
While rhetorically, the forms of nationalism used by TPM and NZ first are sometimes vaguely similar, it is essential to understand the context and background from which this nationalism came. I.e. NZ First and Winston Peters using language such as "two wongs don't make a white", as well as Shane Jones blatantly racism over the last week. Conflating this with a both-sides style argument, I think, is harmful. I'm sure there are xenophobic Maori voters and communities, but the same is true for all other demographics and should be something that is worked on; it's not ok when anyone is racist. This also should not take away from the more systemic racism that is arguably far more harmful whether people believe it exists or not. The recent policing report that was released last year showed the systemic nature of racism within policing; the same goes for a myriad of other state institutions. Again, this is not to say these institutions should be abolished but to say that this level of prejudice exists whether we want to believe it does or not. By and large, the people often most affected by this more systemic style of racism are Maori.
I'm also not sure if you've explained why you're against affirmative action for Maori. You've pointed in the past to liberal democracy values, but these are not inherently in opposition to affirmative action. We have affirmative action programmes for rural students wanting to go to university, women, and poorer communities. Why is doing the same for Maori any different? If the answer is race, then the question should be, why have Maori historically been so overrepresented in negative statistics? Is equity not the goal?
On the topic of healthcare, "...it can feel like an exclusionary system, even if the goal is equity." This is an interesting sentence. To me, this is a question of resources. I can understand the feelings of discrimination, but the answer to this is better support for new immigrants and hard-to-reach groups. New Zealand's healthcare spending has decreased per person over the last several years. Is this the main problem? The issue seems to be a 'feeling' of discrimination rather than a real discriminatory policy. However, I fully acknowledge that navigating the New Zealand bureaucracy as a new resident is tough. However, as I said, we need better support for new immigrants, which again seems to be a resource question.
I also always think that discussions of racial hierarchies have severely negative connotations and foster a way of thinking that is incredibly unhelpful and unproductive. If Maori are prioritised on a system of racial hierarchies, then why are they (when looked at on a demographic basis) overrepresented in negative statistics? How is that being a top pyramid of racial hierarchy? This, to me, represents a logical fallacy type of argument, as does the one about prioritising Maori 'indefinitely'; I don't think that has ever been brought up because, at the current pace, it is so far in the future.
New Zealand has changed a lot as a country, but that doesn't mean the past is not topical or relevant. Our history should be taught more so that we can learn and develop our shared knowledge. If we want to talk about the significant changes to our foundation as a country, maybe we should question why we still call people knights, have a watermark in the corner of our flag and insist on maintaining a harmful number 8 wire mentality when it comes to infrastructure development. New Zealand is facing critical issues, and a large part of them come down to an outdated and unfair economic model that discriminates regardless of who you are based on homeownership.
Apologies for the extensive reply, but multiple points need addressing.
Here's the article about healthcare: https://union.org.nz/new-zealand-not-in-better-health-after-budget-2024/
Yes Natalia, just yes.
Who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ of a group is one of the deep and powerful human fundamentals - like sex and everything to do with it. Whether the group has border guards or is a group of girls at school sending someone to Coventry.
My hope for the Treaty is that over time we who are all here, now, on these islands in the bottom-left corner of the Pacific can see it as *our* symbol of us all choosing to rub along together.
You have made some good points Natalia, but I dont think Nationalism is actually an ideology. You could probably build an ideology around that feeling of Nationalism, but I think one can experience a feeling of Nationalism without needing any ideology to support it.
Thanks, Mark! I see what you’re saying, but I’m specifically talking about nationalism as a political ideology, rather than just a personal sentiment or cultural attachment. Of course, people can feel a sense of national pride without it being ideological—but once nationalism starts shaping policy, governance, political debates and societal structures, it moves firmly into the realm of political ideology.
I always right from a political science lens—looking at how nationalism functions politically, not just emotionally. And in that space, nationalism isn’t just a feeling; it’s a framework that defines belonging, prioritization, and exclusion, which makes it inherently ideological.
So I think we’re both right—nationalism as a feeling can exist without an ideology, but nationalism as a political force always carries one.
The word "ideology" is used in different ways, but what Natalia seems to be talking about is a set of ideas about who belongs to a nation and who doesn't. When Te Pāti Māori and their supporters say that we are not one, but two nations, each of which ought to govern their own affairs, this looks like an ideology. It's an ideology that makes ancestry (rather than simply citizenship) the key factor in deciding what nation you belong to: a view that political scientists call "ethnic nationalism".
Onya Thomas!
When reactions and emotions get organised into movements, that is when they change from human responses to ideologies.
Correct John :)
Excellent commentary Natalia. Regardless of the semantics regarding nationalism and ideology it’s perfectly clear that associated the rhetoric polarised views have been very divisive in this country. One wonders if the stress of the last few years hasn’t exacerbated and accelerated those divisions.
NZ has always been a very parochial country - perhaps a bit less so nowadays but as a 12 year old immigrant in the 1960s I was constantly reminded that I didn’t belong - despite being white.
All of society is a kind of partnership in a fundamental sense but because it has become a contentious term I prefer to think of simple cooperation.
Throughout my life I have worked with the full range of ethnicities here and in Australia and the USA. By and large people work together harmoniously to get the project completed. There are sometimes nay sayers and those that argue and have other agendas. However the projects invariably get completed.
Idealistically one would hope that project NZ would similarly advance.
I suspect like many I have my doubts when tribalism appears to be on the rise and for some, the immigrants since 1840 are resented and unwelcome. Without goodwill and accommodation the future is unpromising.
There are different paths to being a New Zealander, including being born here.
I think that at the level below ‘I am a New Zealander, you are a New Zealander, we are all New Zealanders’ then tribalism is fine. We all belong to multiple tribes - family, work, ethnic origin, culture, sports, friends and so on.
Good commentary and interesting perspectives.
Ahhh Shano. My guilty pleasure is reminding his anti-woke fanboys that Shane once nominated himself to lead the Labour party... watching their head explode lol.