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.
Hi Mobley, is the comment about ‘you’re always wrong’ aimed at me? if it is, that’s fine, as long as you keep reading and debating, Im fine with being wrong. If you are talking about someone else, who? And Im not sure being wrong is a bad thing, most of us usually are :)
Then, why do you bother if you can't put backbone into your convictions? There's no point. That's why I give more than a passing nod to Trump. Debating the minutiae of nationalism is pathetic and certainly does nothing to advance the nation's spirit, growth, maturity and wealth.
I do have strong convictions, and they are rooted in moderation, which, in today's environment, is controversial. It's easy to take a radical or polarized stance, but I believe in the complexity of governance and discussing and debiting it openly. I think Trump oversimplify these issues and is irresponsible with their power, which I strongly disagree with. I’m genuinely open to hearing your perspective—why do you support him? I'm always happy to stand corrected if I’m missing something.
Obviously the majority of American voters couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether you think Trump is irresponsible with his power. They see him as the great drainer of the woke swamps, the Marshall of a world wide political move to the centre right in many jurisdictions in order to fix the irresponsible behaviour of leftie wokesters. Reestablishing commonsense- let's study the nationalism of common sense.
Have you noticed? Meanwhile, you convolute the concept of nationalism.
I looked up some definitions of Nationalism, and found it lives on the far right alongside fascism. It looks like Patriotism is the more benign expression of this feeling, and Shane Jones outburst looks more Patriotic than Nationalistic. Your use of the Nationalism word looks a bit extreme, and could be cos you are a long way to the left, and expressions from the centre, like Patriotism, look like Nationalism to you. You havent used the Patriot word anywhere, and I suggest patriotism is a normal human feeling, like loyalty, and doesnt need an ideology to exist. Not everyone is a fascist.
Hi Mark, I appreciate you having loooked into it. Nationalism is tended to be towards the right becase it speaks to the converging of status quo the RIght conservatism bend is about. But It can be done form the Left as well, TPM is a prime example of a Left leaning nationalist political party, and you could argue that a lot of the values that TPM advocate and argue for a Right Leaning, but in NZ, becase of Te Tirti O Waitangi, we have placed them on the Left. And for the record, I am not left leaning, I call myself a radical centrist, with a right been becase I don't like being told what to do by the government, so that places me in the radical individualist camp, however I have a strong sense of collective responsibility. But I am more right leaning than left if you want to place me squarely in that binary. I don't your Patriotic becase its not usually used to explain or study political theory, political history or political science.
I think of the Canadian anthem where it says "True patriot love in all thy sons command". As I was taught in Canadian history the idea is that patriotism loves the Canadian ideal of a free and liberal (in the classic sense) society. Patriots respect individual rights and beliefs while holding to the collective ideals of loyatly and, in this case Canada first.
Nationalism can take 2 forms: the first is that a group of people try to shape the country to fit their ideals or way of thinking. India's Hindu nationalists would fit this description. Of course so could Mao's China where conformity to Mao's ideal was destroyed. German Nationalism was the same - interestingly Nazi stands for national socialist.
The other is where a country thinks their way is the only way and they can do what they damn well please. Manifest Destiny, in the US, is an example of this. Incidentally this one of the main reasons why the Canadians built the Canadian Pacific Railway between 1875 and 1885. They wanted to keep the American's on their side of the fence. No doubt Canadians were alarmed by statements such as 54/40 or fight (This would mean the current border would be at the Yukon)
Yes I would if I got the opportunity. I think plenty of people have retreated to the far left, and to them, everyone else is on the far right. You have probably heard that before, and I think that it applies mostly to younger people, people like Natalia. Some must need a telescope to see the rest of us, as they have retreated so far left. I noticed that Natalia used the Nationalism word multiple times without ever referring to patriotism. Im sure I clicked on "reply" to Natalia, just like I am replying to you, but these posts can get quite confusing, as it says I wasnt replying to anyone. Confused ?
Hi Mark, I agree these pots are very confusing. I try and add the name of the name of the person I am replying to to help, but it can get a bit all over the place. Thanks for calling me young, Im 43, so I guess I am young depending how old you are :) - Having said that I am not a left leaning thinker. I understand what your re saying, and I agree we have pushed ourselves to the extremes of each political vatange point. Exactly why I am motivated about politics the way I do, and the reason I called my Substack what I called it: Less Certain. So we can all dent and corrupt our misplaced sense of certainty and righteousness which is destroying our cavity to debate politics in a reasonable or constructive way.
"Retreat to the far left" Retreat being the operative word. Bunch of latte sipping crybabies. Anyone would be confused by the musings of pseudo intellectuals. That's why Trump is a breath of fresh air.
Nationalist, I wouldn’t use the word patriotic to define politicians or political movements, but I will look into this, just dont feel I have come across it as much in political science.
I was born in NZ but grew up mainly in Canada. I have been back in NZ for 40 years and i do not sound like any kiwis I know. In the 1970s and 80s the NZers got peeved with English migrant whinging about NZ and told them go home if they didn't like it. Unfortunately I got lumped in as a pom because of my accent - I have never set foot in Europe. The kiwis of the day would now be called nationalists, maybe even racists but the truth is they were patriots. They, like me, love NZ and our way of life. Their attitude, like mine, is welcome to NZ but this is NZ and it is incumbent on you to fit in, not the other way around. I have had the same situation in Canada and even within different provinces. It is simply a human reaction.
By the way, I have met with Winston Peters personally and he is a patriot, as is Shane Jones and the rest of the team - hence the party name New Zealand First. Anyone and everyone welcome here but everyone must be loyal to NZ.
Like you, I hate being told what to think or do by anyone.
Hi Andrew, thanks for taking time to read and comment. I spend six years in Canada too, in Vancouver, where did you grow up? I totally understand you being lumped as a Pom and how annoying that must be. It’s a bit when I am labeled Pākeha or Non-Māori as a main label. It’s uncomfortable and unhelpful.
Lol, Mobley, for someone who thinks I write a lot of nonsense, you sure spend a lot of time on my Substack! And I don’t actually need to make money—I’m just lucky like that. ;)
Thanks, Mark! Yeah, I agree that naming the person in our response helps clear up any confusion. The Substack interface for comments is definitely an area they could improve. I really appreciate you persisting! :)
Hi Mobley, I agree that keeping up with the comments, with the Substack format is confusing. that’s why I try and always start with the name of the person I am ‘speaking’ to, but sometimes I forget.
I am a very proud Mexican, and a very proud Wellingtonian. I agree its not being managed in the best way currently, but I know some very hard working councilors doing the best they can. Thomas Nash specifically does amazing work!
Speaking as a proud Aucklander, I want to visit Mexico. But that Wellington place … I know I have heard of it … somewhere south of the Bombay Hills I understand. Exotic inhabitants apparently.
Hi Tony. I think this thread, to a large extent, is about the structures of ‘who is in and who is out’ in New Zealand.
Nationalism, patriotism, parochialism, and rootedness all involve a strong sense of identity and belonging, whether to a nation or a local community. They emphasize loyalty and emotional attachment to one's country or local area, celebrate cultural heritage and traditions, and can sometimes lead to an exclusionary attitude towards outsiders.
I think a ‘Pom’ or ‘Mexican’ focus is exclusionary and unhelpful. I mean I think it really, really misses the boat. We are all here now. None of the four words includes a requirement for a person, in order to be a New Zealander, to eliminate a British feeling or Mexican identity. That is xenophobia imo.
I think ‘rootedness’ touches onto the core concept in a deeper, more fundamental and more engaging way than do nationalism, parochialism or patriotism.
You can't eliminate the characteristics of the culture you were born to but if you decide that another country is a better place to be for you, and they graciously allow you to become a citizen there, at least you can have the decency to attempt some outward looking involvement in characteristics now surrounding you. It won't long before your kids will.
Hi Mobley, i totally agree with you. I have been a migrant since I was four in Canada, then in USA when I was 13, then in Spain when i was 24 then in NZ when i was 29. my mom was a diplomat for the Mexican government, so we traveled a lot. I take my responsibility as a migrant very seriously, often knowing way more about my host country its history and context than most locals. However, I also know that people struggle with the idea of engaging with people from other countries. Theories are bountiful, but the reality in a nutshell is that we all struggle, and it’s hard and it will always be hard. We all have to do our part, host country and migrants. It should be a joint effort.
From my perspective, NZers are generally a bunch of unmotivated half educated self centered twerps, always looking for the main chance to grift after short term gain with little thought for the future and much for when the the weekend will arrive. Nationalism doesn't enter their thoughts.
“You can't eliminate the characteristics of the culture you were born to but if you decide that another country is a better place to be for you, and they graciously allow you to become a citizen there, at least you can have the decency to attempt some outward looking involvement in characteristics now surrounding you. It won't long before your kids will.”
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.
Hi James, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment and for generous comment at that. I agree, due to its geographical location, population size and historical context, it does seme to have some very parochial views and strong ones at that. I also agree, that it seems divided at the moment, hence my motivation to write from a place of challenging our certain and righteous views, for whatever they are worth.
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.
Tony, John and anybody can comment as much as they want. Especially people like John that are thoughtful, respectful, open minded and have a keen interest for being a bit more flexible. I also don't think he is off topic at all. You saying he comments to often is more what is off topic.
Interesting article. I think the question "Who is allowed to have an opinion about the treaty?" is the the most important and I think that is what Seymour is trying to address. If we answer that question the others will fall into place.
Hi Andrew, thanks for you comment and chiming in. great question, my point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion about The Treaty. If it is truly to be upheld, it needs to be subject to every voters scrutiny regardless of whether they are Māori or non-Māori, born here or not. Every eligible voter, should be able to not only have an opinion but to challenge and scrutinize how The treaty is used and who it aims to benefit, when and at expense of what. That is the challenge with governing, regardless of the model, it must be fair and debate must be had on what the tradeoffs are, becase one thing is true, no government regardless of who is the Sovereign, must choose priorities wisely, transparently and selectively.
Wow, Natalia!, you’re a brave and perceptive woman and you’re expressing powerful ideas. Keep going. I wonder where this increasingly hostile grievance culture is going? Not partnership. I also follow Anna Applebaum who writes about authoritarian-ism. Nat, please keep writing.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate the generous and kind comment. Im not sure where it’s going, but it’s very divisive, unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a liberal democracy to cope with it with its increasing hyper diverse population and information quality crisis. Ill check Anna Applebaum out, love a good recommendation
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.
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.
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.
Hi Henry, i agree. Not sure what comment you are answering (Substack's interface of comment isn't super clear sometimes) and just keen to understand what you mean :)
My research was focused on why has housing become so unaffordable, looking at it through a 60 year time frame and the Key developments during that period.
Lol Mobley. I am actually not short of friends; you'd be surprised how big my tribe is. And i have many flaws, but accommodating people and people pleasing is not one of them. I obviously never want to offend, but I also welcome, step into and thrive under robust debate around competing political views. I wouldn't write what I write if I wasn't comfortable being either wrong or a minority voice. Having said that I don't write from a place of confrontation or provocation, these are my very genuine thoughts, questions and ideas. I am not here performing, I promise you that.
I have not heard the argument that Seymour is akin to Trump and I don't think it should be taken seriously.
There is exactly one NZ politician who should be compared with Trump. That is the man who opposes immigration, who broke with the conventional right wing on economic issues, who is famous for saying controversial things, who has come back after being thrown out of power (thanks to the excesses of the Left), and who loves the slogan "$country first".
By contrast, the only thing Seymour has in common with Trump is an aversion to regulation.
I liked this piece, but I have to make one correction: by definition, you are Paakehaa. Maaori and Paakehaa are categories like the sides of a coin: if not one, then the other.
And, to extend that analogy, the side doesn't matter: the coin is worth the same.
I categorically reject the premise that in this country we are defined and bound by being either Māori or Pākeha. It is such a gross oversimplification of our identities, especially since globalization. maybe 100 years ago, but not anymore. We are a rainbow of shape shifting, code changing, blending, contradictory identities. I refuse to be boxed into this one side of the coin or another business, not just for myself, but for anyone. It’s ridiculous.
I understand that, and I reject that our identities are that binary. This is why we got into the identity politics that has come to disrupt our political landscape and not in a good way. We must understand that we are not that simple and stop trying to define our populations based on these terms. Either too binary or too granular we can’t possibly govern anybody. It’s a hard balance to strike but we must start by thinking more critically about how we define ourselves and, more importantly how our government define us. Individually we can think whatever we want, but expecting our government to define us as Māori and Non-Maori is as problematic as the government trying to translate every piece of policy into the 150 languages spoken in NZ. Does that make sense?
Hi qangin. ‘Pakeha’ used to be, and maybe still is, associated with having British roots. There are plenty of people who might identify with being Maori, who are more pakeha than me; I’m 1/4 Argentinian. That said, one great grandfather who was born here in 1839 grew up bilingual in Maori and English, so I guess that makes me ‘mongrel’.
I think it is drawing too long a bow to use the two-sided coin categorisation on the people here in New Zealand now.
Thanks John, I agree it’s drawing too long a bow to use a two sided coin categorizations. And 1/4 Argentinian, I knew we had more in common that we thought. Latin people tend to find each other one way or another :)
My dad’s first language was Spanish. I remember relatives from Buenos Aires playfully (rudely?) remarking on the pronunciation of words by Mexicans and Spaniards. I have a second cousin who was about to ‘disappear’ in the ‘70s, was gotten out of jail by a friend of the family who was a Colonel, and now lives in Barcelona.
oh love that your dads first language was Spanish, like me. Ha, I bet the Argentinos made fun of us, its mutual so its ok. We have jokes about how Argentineans think they are God's gift to the universe - and then we secretly resent them for their football skills.
You are walking a fine line in being blocked Mobley. You either contribute meaningfully, honestly, genuinely and respectably or I will block you. I am totally against censuring speech, until you cross a line. So if I get another inch of racist commentary from you, you are out.
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.
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!
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".
You're debating a term, nationalism that has little sway in nations with no borders with others. Nationalism is a term requiring a frontal noun eg Scottish, German, or Polish. Here it is soft. That's why we don't stand up at the movies for God Save the Queen as we did when I was a kid. Imagine that? Off the Bernsteins Westside Story and standing for GStQ.
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.
Oh God save us from another bloody hui!
You may not have noticed but to many of us, you're always wrong.
Hi Mobley, is the comment about ‘you’re always wrong’ aimed at me? if it is, that’s fine, as long as you keep reading and debating, Im fine with being wrong. If you are talking about someone else, who? And Im not sure being wrong is a bad thing, most of us usually are :)
Then, why do you bother if you can't put backbone into your convictions? There's no point. That's why I give more than a passing nod to Trump. Debating the minutiae of nationalism is pathetic and certainly does nothing to advance the nation's spirit, growth, maturity and wealth.
I do have strong convictions, and they are rooted in moderation, which, in today's environment, is controversial. It's easy to take a radical or polarized stance, but I believe in the complexity of governance and discussing and debiting it openly. I think Trump oversimplify these issues and is irresponsible with their power, which I strongly disagree with. I’m genuinely open to hearing your perspective—why do you support him? I'm always happy to stand corrected if I’m missing something.
Obviously the majority of American voters couldn't give a tinker's cuss whether you think Trump is irresponsible with his power. They see him as the great drainer of the woke swamps, the Marshall of a world wide political move to the centre right in many jurisdictions in order to fix the irresponsible behaviour of leftie wokesters. Reestablishing commonsense- let's study the nationalism of common sense.
Have you noticed? Meanwhile, you convolute the concept of nationalism.
I looked up some definitions of Nationalism, and found it lives on the far right alongside fascism. It looks like Patriotism is the more benign expression of this feeling, and Shane Jones outburst looks more Patriotic than Nationalistic. Your use of the Nationalism word looks a bit extreme, and could be cos you are a long way to the left, and expressions from the centre, like Patriotism, look like Nationalism to you. You havent used the Patriot word anywhere, and I suggest patriotism is a normal human feeling, like loyalty, and doesnt need an ideology to exist. Not everyone is a fascist.
Hi Mark, I appreciate you having loooked into it. Nationalism is tended to be towards the right becase it speaks to the converging of status quo the RIght conservatism bend is about. But It can be done form the Left as well, TPM is a prime example of a Left leaning nationalist political party, and you could argue that a lot of the values that TPM advocate and argue for a Right Leaning, but in NZ, becase of Te Tirti O Waitangi, we have placed them on the Left. And for the record, I am not left leaning, I call myself a radical centrist, with a right been becase I don't like being told what to do by the government, so that places me in the radical individualist camp, however I have a strong sense of collective responsibility. But I am more right leaning than left if you want to place me squarely in that binary. I don't your Patriotic becase its not usually used to explain or study political theory, political history or political science.
I think of the Canadian anthem where it says "True patriot love in all thy sons command". As I was taught in Canadian history the idea is that patriotism loves the Canadian ideal of a free and liberal (in the classic sense) society. Patriots respect individual rights and beliefs while holding to the collective ideals of loyatly and, in this case Canada first.
Nationalism can take 2 forms: the first is that a group of people try to shape the country to fit their ideals or way of thinking. India's Hindu nationalists would fit this description. Of course so could Mao's China where conformity to Mao's ideal was destroyed. German Nationalism was the same - interestingly Nazi stands for national socialist.
The other is where a country thinks their way is the only way and they can do what they damn well please. Manifest Destiny, in the US, is an example of this. Incidentally this one of the main reasons why the Canadians built the Canadian Pacific Railway between 1875 and 1885. They wanted to keep the American's on their side of the fence. No doubt Canadians were alarmed by statements such as 54/40 or fight (This would mean the current border would be at the Yukon)
I meant to say "where mao's ideal destroyed any others" and continues to do so.
Did you consider asking Shane whether he's an N or a P?
Yes I would if I got the opportunity. I think plenty of people have retreated to the far left, and to them, everyone else is on the far right. You have probably heard that before, and I think that it applies mostly to younger people, people like Natalia. Some must need a telescope to see the rest of us, as they have retreated so far left. I noticed that Natalia used the Nationalism word multiple times without ever referring to patriotism. Im sure I clicked on "reply" to Natalia, just like I am replying to you, but these posts can get quite confusing, as it says I wasnt replying to anyone. Confused ?
Hi Mark, I agree these pots are very confusing. I try and add the name of the name of the person I am replying to to help, but it can get a bit all over the place. Thanks for calling me young, Im 43, so I guess I am young depending how old you are :) - Having said that I am not a left leaning thinker. I understand what your re saying, and I agree we have pushed ourselves to the extremes of each political vatange point. Exactly why I am motivated about politics the way I do, and the reason I called my Substack what I called it: Less Certain. So we can all dent and corrupt our misplaced sense of certainty and righteousness which is destroying our cavity to debate politics in a reasonable or constructive way.
If you ask Jones, prepare for a verbal pasting!
"Retreat to the far left" Retreat being the operative word. Bunch of latte sipping crybabies. Anyone would be confused by the musings of pseudo intellectuals. That's why Trump is a breath of fresh air.
Nationalist, I wouldn’t use the word patriotic to define politicians or political movements, but I will look into this, just dont feel I have come across it as much in political science.
Hi Natalia
I was born in NZ but grew up mainly in Canada. I have been back in NZ for 40 years and i do not sound like any kiwis I know. In the 1970s and 80s the NZers got peeved with English migrant whinging about NZ and told them go home if they didn't like it. Unfortunately I got lumped in as a pom because of my accent - I have never set foot in Europe. The kiwis of the day would now be called nationalists, maybe even racists but the truth is they were patriots. They, like me, love NZ and our way of life. Their attitude, like mine, is welcome to NZ but this is NZ and it is incumbent on you to fit in, not the other way around. I have had the same situation in Canada and even within different provinces. It is simply a human reaction.
By the way, I have met with Winston Peters personally and he is a patriot, as is Shane Jones and the rest of the team - hence the party name New Zealand First. Anyone and everyone welcome here but everyone must be loyal to NZ.
Like you, I hate being told what to think or do by anyone.
Hi Andrew, thanks for taking time to read and comment. I spend six years in Canada too, in Vancouver, where did you grow up? I totally understand you being lumped as a Pom and how annoying that must be. It’s a bit when I am labeled Pākeha or Non-Māori as a main label. It’s uncomfortable and unhelpful.
Oh really? Throw the cat another goldfish.
Mobley, what does: ‘Throw the cat another goldfish’ mean?
To hell with the expense. Let's waste our time reading inane twaddle when we could be out earning a buck.
Lol, Mobley, for someone who thinks I write a lot of nonsense, you sure spend a lot of time on my Substack! And I don’t actually need to make money—I’m just lucky like that. ;)
I think it is another of Mobley's red herrings. Your suggestion of using the persons name in ones post is helpful.
Thanks, Mark! Yeah, I agree that naming the person in our response helps clear up any confusion. The Substack interface for comments is definitely an area they could improve. I really appreciate you persisting! :)
Go for your life, Mark Hairyball.
Full name Grutliquor. Mobley Grutluor.
You missed the point.
Who missed the point? I'm confused by all of these lines on the left of my screen. They keep leading me down rabbit holes.
Hi Mobley, I agree that keeping up with the comments, with the Substack format is confusing. that’s why I try and always start with the name of the person I am ‘speaking’ to, but sometimes I forget.
You must be Mexican. Do you live in Wellington, the most poorly managed city in NZ?
I am a very proud Mexican, and a very proud Wellingtonian. I agree its not being managed in the best way currently, but I know some very hard working councilors doing the best they can. Thomas Nash specifically does amazing work!
Speaking as a proud Aucklander, I want to visit Mexico. But that Wellington place … I know I have heard of it … somewhere south of the Bombay Hills I understand. Exotic inhabitants apparently.
Hi Tony. I think this thread, to a large extent, is about the structures of ‘who is in and who is out’ in New Zealand.
Nationalism, patriotism, parochialism, and rootedness all involve a strong sense of identity and belonging, whether to a nation or a local community. They emphasize loyalty and emotional attachment to one's country or local area, celebrate cultural heritage and traditions, and can sometimes lead to an exclusionary attitude towards outsiders.
I think a ‘Pom’ or ‘Mexican’ focus is exclusionary and unhelpful. I mean I think it really, really misses the boat. We are all here now. None of the four words includes a requirement for a person, in order to be a New Zealander, to eliminate a British feeling or Mexican identity. That is xenophobia imo.
I think ‘rootedness’ touches onto the core concept in a deeper, more fundamental and more engaging way than do nationalism, parochialism or patriotism.
You can't eliminate the characteristics of the culture you were born to but if you decide that another country is a better place to be for you, and they graciously allow you to become a citizen there, at least you can have the decency to attempt some outward looking involvement in characteristics now surrounding you. It won't long before your kids will.
Hi Mobley, i totally agree with you. I have been a migrant since I was four in Canada, then in USA when I was 13, then in Spain when i was 24 then in NZ when i was 29. my mom was a diplomat for the Mexican government, so we traveled a lot. I take my responsibility as a migrant very seriously, often knowing way more about my host country its history and context than most locals. However, I also know that people struggle with the idea of engaging with people from other countries. Theories are bountiful, but the reality in a nutshell is that we all struggle, and it’s hard and it will always be hard. We all have to do our part, host country and migrants. It should be a joint effort.
When I lived in Surrey for a couple of years I thoroughly enjoyed pretending to be a pommie stockbroker.
Totally.
Rootedness.
Yeah, you're onto it, John. We all love a good root.
From my perspective, NZers are generally a bunch of unmotivated half educated self centered twerps, always looking for the main chance to grift after short term gain with little thought for the future and much for when the the weekend will arrive. Nationalism doesn't enter their thoughts.
Hi Mobley
Someone once said:
“You can't eliminate the characteristics of the culture you were born to but if you decide that another country is a better place to be for you, and they graciously allow you to become a citizen there, at least you can have the decency to attempt some outward looking involvement in characteristics now surrounding you. It won't long before your kids will.”
So?
I'd call it dumbism.
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.
Hi James, thanks for reading and taking the time to comment and for generous comment at that. I agree, due to its geographical location, population size and historical context, it does seme to have some very parochial views and strong ones at that. I also agree, that it seems divided at the moment, hence my motivation to write from a place of challenging our certain and righteous views, for whatever they are worth.
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.
John, you comment too often I think you’re off topic.
Tony, John and anybody can comment as much as they want. Especially people like John that are thoughtful, respectful, open minded and have a keen interest for being a bit more flexible. I also don't think he is off topic at all. You saying he comments to often is more what is off topic.
Hi Tony. Well I certainly don’t want to spam, so I hear your comment. But how do you see my comments as being off topic?
John, you dont spam, please ignore. I decided who comments too much or not here and you are definitely welcome as much as you want.
Prejudice definitely goes in all directions and as you say dialogue leading to understanding is the way.
Interesting article. I think the question "Who is allowed to have an opinion about the treaty?" is the the most important and I think that is what Seymour is trying to address. If we answer that question the others will fall into place.
Hi Andrew, thanks for you comment and chiming in. great question, my point is that everyone should be allowed to have an opinion about The Treaty. If it is truly to be upheld, it needs to be subject to every voters scrutiny regardless of whether they are Māori or non-Māori, born here or not. Every eligible voter, should be able to not only have an opinion but to challenge and scrutinize how The treaty is used and who it aims to benefit, when and at expense of what. That is the challenge with governing, regardless of the model, it must be fair and debate must be had on what the tradeoffs are, becase one thing is true, no government regardless of who is the Sovereign, must choose priorities wisely, transparently and selectively.
Wow, Natalia!, you’re a brave and perceptive woman and you’re expressing powerful ideas. Keep going. I wonder where this increasingly hostile grievance culture is going? Not partnership. I also follow Anna Applebaum who writes about authoritarian-ism. Nat, please keep writing.
Thanks Tony, I appreciate the generous and kind comment. Im not sure where it’s going, but it’s very divisive, unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a liberal democracy to cope with it with its increasing hyper diverse population and information quality crisis. Ill check Anna Applebaum out, love a good recommendation
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.
There are a lot of good politicians who are alumni of the Labour Party.
Name one.
Well ex-politician, Richard Prebble.
lol, love a good head explode factoid :) Thanks Paul for kind comment.
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.
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.
No, just renamed them fush n chups
I have a T shirt that says.
" OLD, BALD, WHITE, RICH, MALE.. Under those conditions, happy to be RACIST.
Just because someone says they aren't something doesn't mean they that they are not that thing
Hi Henry, i agree. Not sure what comment you are answering (Substack's interface of comment isn't super clear sometimes) and just keen to understand what you mean :)
My extremely long comment (sorry lol mpols student alert) was in reply to the NZ First nationalism thread and your reply to the original long comment.
Ha! Excellent, will go back and re-read. Mpols student, you my people 🤓 love that! I’m a Mpols too. Where u studying? 📚
Almost finished up at VuW
Good Luck Henry! What was your research on? Are you going to do a PhD? Maybe we could catch up for coffee one day?
May do a PhD at some point but sadly money has to be made sooner rather than later. Yeah sure thing, would be interesting to talk about your research.
My research was focused on why has housing become so unaffordable, looking at it through a 60 year time frame and the Key developments during that period.
Why would one write a substack called "Less Certain" unless you are short of friends and scared of offending anyone?
Lol Mobley. I am actually not short of friends; you'd be surprised how big my tribe is. And i have many flaws, but accommodating people and people pleasing is not one of them. I obviously never want to offend, but I also welcome, step into and thrive under robust debate around competing political views. I wouldn't write what I write if I wasn't comfortable being either wrong or a minority voice. Having said that I don't write from a place of confrontation or provocation, these are my very genuine thoughts, questions and ideas. I am not here performing, I promise you that.
Thanks for writing bollocks that keeps people navel gazing and discombobulated. Life's a bitch, then you die!
You’re welcome :)
I know;) people are so accommodating.
I have not heard the argument that Seymour is akin to Trump and I don't think it should be taken seriously.
There is exactly one NZ politician who should be compared with Trump. That is the man who opposes immigration, who broke with the conventional right wing on economic issues, who is famous for saying controversial things, who has come back after being thrown out of power (thanks to the excesses of the Left), and who loves the slogan "$country first".
By contrast, the only thing Seymour has in common with Trump is an aversion to regulation.
Agreed, i dont think it should be taken seriously either, which is why I wrote this :)
I liked this piece, but I have to make one correction: by definition, you are Paakehaa. Maaori and Paakehaa are categories like the sides of a coin: if not one, then the other.
And, to extend that analogy, the side doesn't matter: the coin is worth the same.
I categorically reject the premise that in this country we are defined and bound by being either Māori or Pākeha. It is such a gross oversimplification of our identities, especially since globalization. maybe 100 years ago, but not anymore. We are a rainbow of shape shifting, code changing, blending, contradictory identities. I refuse to be boxed into this one side of the coin or another business, not just for myself, but for anyone. It’s ridiculous.
I agree with you, but the definition of Paakehaa is literally "non-Maaori".
I understand that, and I reject that our identities are that binary. This is why we got into the identity politics that has come to disrupt our political landscape and not in a good way. We must understand that we are not that simple and stop trying to define our populations based on these terms. Either too binary or too granular we can’t possibly govern anybody. It’s a hard balance to strike but we must start by thinking more critically about how we define ourselves and, more importantly how our government define us. Individually we can think whatever we want, but expecting our government to define us as Māori and Non-Maori is as problematic as the government trying to translate every piece of policy into the 150 languages spoken in NZ. Does that make sense?
It makes sense, of course. My “race” forms a very small part of my identity, so I tend to look at this in a more detached and literal manner.
Whether or not someone is Maaori or Paakehaa matters less to me than whether they have blue eyes or not-blue eyes.
Hi qangin. ‘Pakeha’ used to be, and maybe still is, associated with having British roots. There are plenty of people who might identify with being Maori, who are more pakeha than me; I’m 1/4 Argentinian. That said, one great grandfather who was born here in 1839 grew up bilingual in Maori and English, so I guess that makes me ‘mongrel’.
I think it is drawing too long a bow to use the two-sided coin categorisation on the people here in New Zealand now.
Thanks John, I agree it’s drawing too long a bow to use a two sided coin categorizations. And 1/4 Argentinian, I knew we had more in common that we thought. Latin people tend to find each other one way or another :)
My dad’s first language was Spanish. I remember relatives from Buenos Aires playfully (rudely?) remarking on the pronunciation of words by Mexicans and Spaniards. I have a second cousin who was about to ‘disappear’ in the ‘70s, was gotten out of jail by a friend of the family who was a Colonel, and now lives in Barcelona.
oh love that your dads first language was Spanish, like me. Ha, I bet the Argentinos made fun of us, its mutual so its ok. We have jokes about how Argentineans think they are God's gift to the universe - and then we secretly resent them for their football skills.
Well that football thing is big. Much bigger than we comprehend in NZ.
In the ‘70s we had a cousin, Andrés, staying with our family here in Auckland. Argentina won the World Cup (is that what it’s called?).
Very bad things were happening back home in Argentina under the military, and that was one reason why he was staying with us.
But when they won the World Cup he was literally jumping and crying and shouting how much he loved Argentina.
I thought it was Maaaaooooriii?
You are walking a fine line in being blocked Mobley. You either contribute meaningfully, honestly, genuinely and respectably or I will block you. I am totally against censuring speech, until you cross a line. So if I get another inch of racist commentary from you, you are out.
You sure are a provocative bugger Mobley. (I’m smiling.)
Excellent views!
Thanks Mike, I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment.
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/
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
Dare you to approach Winston and tell him he's xenophobic .
Overt* not overtime
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.
So, you're opposed to nationalism? Yes or no.
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 :)
You're debating a term, nationalism that has little sway in nations with no borders with others. Nationalism is a term requiring a frontal noun eg Scottish, German, or Polish. Here it is soft. That's why we don't stand up at the movies for God Save the Queen as we did when I was a kid. Imagine that? Off the Bernsteins Westside Story and standing for GStQ.