By Tim Selwyn

Copyright thedailyblog

“Curry-muncher!” he retorted apropos of nothing that I could understand. Then he said it again in the plural, “curry-munchers.” He said it loudly to gain attention from what I could surmise – he seemed to be revelling in saying it, like a child testing his luck. There were maybe four or five of us in the room at the time. We were doing something in relation to campaign activity at Act Party headquarters in Newmarket, stacking envelopes or planning something. It was 2003 or 2004 and I was the acting General Manager and in charge of these people. Someone – it might have been me – asked him what he was talking about. This enabled him to get in a few more of the same infantile epithets as he explained himself.

It occurred to me he was trial running the term rather than articulating anything genuine about an encounter with an Indian person. This guy was a Macedonian immigrant – a white guy, a European. He thought he had discovered a loophole in the English language that would allow him to wantonly use a derogatory term in a way or in an environment that was (somehow) permissible. He was attempting to acclimatise to the Pakeha-dominated social milieu. His derogatory expression was his attempt to try to bond with the majority culture by othering a minority group – an act of racial solidarity. Racism – the Pakeha handshake.

But no one else was repeating what he said. We acknowledged he was talking about Indian people but we weren’t saying what he was saying. There was Act’s “Asian Chapter” of Chinese and Koreans down the corridor, but there were no Indians at the office. That’s why he was saying it – there were no Indians present. At this point no one had said anything to him about the term itself, but going from the rant I was pretty sure if the Asians weren’t part of the outfit he would have been using terms against them too.

So, what to do? Being more than two decades after the fact we can now turn to AI for management support. My AI (MS Co-pilot) says what you would expect:

That’s a tough but important moment to handle well. Even if the targeted group wasn’t present, the impact of racist language still ripples through the workplace culture. […]

Step-by-Step Response Strategy: 1. Address It Promptly and Privately […] 2. Reaffirm Workplace Values […] 3. Document the Incident […] 4. Consider Formal Action […] 5. Educate and Prevent […]

Even if no one from the targeted race was present, others may feel unsafe, complicit, or alienated. Your response sets the tone for what’s acceptable—and what’s not. It’s not just about discipline; it’s about leadership.

And that’s exactly how I would approach that nowadays, yes, but twenty years ago my tactic was simplistic mirroring – reactionary. Just slam it right back in their face. They dished it out – so they got to take it – right? I described to the AI what I did in fact do in this case and asked if my approach was OK. Here is the response:

No, it’s absolutely not okay to use racist language—even with the intent of “teaching a lesson.” As a manager, your role is to model integrity, fairness, and professionalism. Responding to inappropriate behavior with more inappropriate behavior undermines your authority and can escalate harm, not resolve it.

Here’s why that approach backfires:

Why Retaliatory Language Is Harmful

It violates workplace standards […] It exposes you to liability […] It damages trust […] It reinforces harm […]

What You Can Do Instead

Be direct and firm […] Use restorative approaches […] Lead by example […].

AI models the collective academic wisdom of not fighting the bully, narking to the teacher, rigid rule-following and so on; but reality is often more properly governed by intuition not text book answers.

Here’s what I did. After he had finished his random racist rant there was a lull and I asked him where he was from again (I already knew): Macedonia (as in Northern Macedonia formerly the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – so I could have called him Latka who wasn’t even from a ‘real country’, but he might not have got the joke). Oh, fascinating. Macedonia. Say, what do you eat mainly in Macedonia then? He didn’t know what I meant. Well, what’s the national dish of Macedonia that everyone eats? Souvlaki. Ah, Souvlaki. I got him to say it a few times so I could get the pronunciation right. He seemed heartened and delighted at my sudden onset of curiosity about the cuisine of his Balkan homeland. He was so happy I was interested. He named some of the ingredients and the preparation etc. Souvlaki – that’s great.

“So… then you’re a Souvlaki-muncher aren’t you?” He looked at me funny so I had to say it a bit louder. He gave a sheepish laugh and we got back to work. Until maybe five minutes later when he mentioned “curry-munchers” again so I immediately shot back “Souvlaki-muncher – what are you saying?” and he said it again and immediately even louder I repeated that he was a Souvlaki-muncher and instead of saying his name referred to him as “Souvlaki-muncher”. There might have been a later incident that day or the following day when I did the exact same thing – as soon as he said that it would be thrown back in his face twice as loud so everyone can hear: “Souvlaki-muncher!”

After that no more problems. The message of inclusion was effectively delivered by this method because there was no repetition of it and apart from him being given only what he was putting out there was no harm to anyone. Peace in the valley. Loving words, tautoko katoa. Another successful resolution in real life by doing the exact opposite of what AI suggested.

These memories aren’t brought up merely as some perverse homily calculated to antagonise the hostile commentary at The Daily Blogabout ever having been connected with Act, it is to bring the abstract spectre of racism that politicians and the media refer to into real life examples.

The line between gauche insensitivity and outright racism is easily crossed, and the media as referee are quick to rule most as transgressions out of acceptable bounds. Usually the media can find someone, somewhere who will go on the record using the word “racism” in order to fit the narrative. Sometimes justified, sometimes not. The swirling dumpster fire of Takuta Ferris’s comments on the Labour Party using non-Maori in the Tamaki-Makaurau by-election has been both. It’s triggered off many other fires.

I think nothing wrong of non-Maori helping in a Maori electorate campaign. As someone supporting the original Maori Party and then the Mana Party we had non-Maori assistance and candidates etc, without anything being an issue. The closest I can remember there ever being a racial issue that caused tension was when Hone Harawira called for a division of the Maori members at the 2014 Mana convention to see where the Maori opinion was on joining an alliance with the Internet Party – and that was only because someone else handled it badly by rudely ordering the tau iwi out. But my background is urban and so while I thought nothing of a Labour Facebook photo that showed ethnic peoples out for Peeni Henare I can see why someone who represents a South Island electorate might view those matters with chagrin. I can also see why having non-Maori and immigrants in particular assisting is a legitimate concern. I can see that Labour boasting about how many immigrants they have to support them to try to take a Maori seat is problematic.

My impression of the initial post by Ferris was he was doing two things: criticising Labour for using non-Maori in a Maori electorate, and claiming Te Pati Maori was a genuine Maori party whereas Labour was not. Let’s go through these two things.

Labour should not have boasted about using foreign muscle in the first place and Ferris shouldn’t have mentioned it. However, Ferris’s post itself didn’t cross any line – far, far worse is out there (see below). On the second point: Is Labour not a genuine Maori Party? No it isn’t. Labour just need to suck up that fact and wear it because it’s true – painful and probably impossible to acknowledge publicly – but true: the Pakeha prevail every time when push comes to shove in Labour. The Foreshore and Seabed Act was a classic where the white cabinet and caucus shafted the Maori. Same with the ram raid bill Kiri Allen was forced to put through as Justice Minister that would imprison Maori children by lowering the age – the white cabinet overrides Maori again. Ask John Tamihere all about it – he was Lands Minister giving away Crown land to white High Country farmers when he was in Labour passing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to take land off Maori. Labour is and will always sacrifice Maori for the others that is just reality and we all know it. Willie and Labour cannot argue against the facts and the record.

The argument from Labour must be how much more Maori gain from being inside their tent. It will be a weak argument I wouldn’t buy, but they have to make it. The Maori Party don’t have to prove anything – they are pono, tuturu and tino to the max – and we all know that because everyone is hating on them because they’re scared TPM will not compromise and sell out like the previous iteration did.

The difficulty for TPM has come from two places: a relentlessly anti media and a relentlessly anarchic political management which is entirely self-inflicted. I don’t think Labour have really damaged them at this point, they’ve only threatened. The media will be anti always but the internal mess is unnecessary and totally avoidable. Ferris’s midnight bong o’clock rock double-down was not a rant it was a rambling trail of non sequiturs as was JT’s rambling colonisation victimhood word salad on Waatea. None of what those two said made any sense. It was embarrassing listening.

Compounding Ferris and JT melting down was the TPM leadership of Rawiri and Debbie who folded like a serviette instantly and threw Ferris under the waka. Christ that was weak to admit racism, confessing with mea culpa’s all round, it undermined everything and it’s not true – or arguably not true. Ferris was being critical of Labour for using non-Maori, he wasn’t being critical of the non-Maori themselves – it was on Labour. To pretend he was being racist because he mentioned ethnicities was his second point – which was a note on semantics, presented in a pseudo-philosophic manner like he was Noam Chomsky or something that came across as sailing three spots to the wind. The leaders conceding racism where none was is thoroughly unwise and a scared, flaky move which combined with the Whip position being taken away from Mariameno Kapa-Kingi does not provide confidence. Oriini Kaipara as their sixth MP is set to join them, this should be a celebration not a circling of wagons.

And speaking of kraals, the Act Party are on the road from annoying to odious with their racialised rhetoric on socials spewing a near daily torrent of anti-Maori poison. I don’t know what chapters the Act organisation has these days – there used to be only the Asian Chapter for Chinese and Koreans. My log-in password was “MaoriChapter” – that’s as close to a Maori branch they ever had. So, given the ethnic basis of the Asian Chapter it is strange that Act should use ethnicity as a cudgel.

Anything to do with Maori is ethnicity and race according to Act. Polynesians maybe don’t exist? The idea of whakapapa and geneology don’t exist for them, Maori = race. And anything about race is bad. The performance is deeply hypocritical and wantonly damaging. Just this week are two illustrations of this racism in action from Act.

On Tuesday Parmjeet Parmar was on Twitter saying Maori shouldn’t have a right to NZ citizenship just because they were Maori. Yesterday Simon Court was on The Platform calling the kaffiyeh “terrorist garb” and a “tea towel” – which was repeated by their Leader, Rimmmer, on the tiles. Court was four square for Israel as usual, however the Jewish State he so proudly supports has a citizenship policy that says every Jew can become an Israeli citizen by dint of their… let’s get this right… race?… no?…only use that word for Maori, what about ethnicity? No?… only use that for Maori, so… religion? heritage? It is hypocrisy.

And as for Parmar’s continued despicable racism towards Maori we see the tension exemplified by our Souvlaki-muncher friend: as an immigrant what level of racism do I have to demonstrate to the white majority in order to be socially accepted by the white majority? Quite a lot it turns out because she has done a load of heavy lifting on behalf of the white superstructure and isn’t stopping. But this week was a massive deflection because as she sent out the toxic post against Maori the Adoption Amendment Bill was being rammed through the House under urgency to stop the Hindu adoption law of India being used to traffic child slaves. Yes the government had let this putrid situation go on until this week and yet we see no identification from Act and their acutely tuned racial radar of ethnicities and religions and countries that obviously do not share our values and have been a threat to “our” way of life. Silence when Indians are caught out, but a song and dance – a Bollywood-level extravaganza – when Maori are being made out to be the problem.

The two problems as I see them remain. Firstly, leaders have taken to victimhood and the political system rewards racial prejudice – that is an unsatisfactory mix. Secondly, the liberal value of “diversity” cannot be achieved without substantial immigration, but substantial immigration is necessarily colonisation and so is counter to the indigenous value of “decolonisation”. Over-laying the two problems are the lies and mythology and sensitivities which stymie any open discussion – for example the undeniable fact that without the million+ immigrants over the last 35 years there would be more Maori seats than today (maybe five more), and so the glib retort that immigrants are not a “threat” or “do not diminish” Maori power is simply false.

Dialling down the rhetoric and dialling up the facts may not get the result you want because the facts are themselves disturbingly raw. What we need now is love.