The Mongolians of inner Mongolia are not indigenous. The Mongolians originated somewhere just south of Lake Baikal, came down and slaughtered the Tanguts and Han Chinese who use to live in the area of Inner Mongolia.

THe Uighers are also not indigenous to Xinjiang province.

Tibet has been part of China for centuries.

This is Beijing propaganda, Wayne.

The Turkic Uyghurs settled in Singkiang from 830AD. They migrated from central asia in the north, but interestingly they displaced not Han Chinese but an Indo-European people.

By your argument valid, Wayne, Maori aren’t indigenous to NZ, as they came down the Pacific in canoes to this archipelago about 800-1000 years ago, more recently than the
Uyghurs moved into Sinkiang.

Wayne, your statements about Tibet are flawed, too. After being a tribute-paying state to Chinese empires, Tibet was a separate state from 630 AD.

According to Wikipedia (are you able to access that from Beijing?), Tibetans’ genes diverged from the Han Chinese pool 3000 years ago. Studies seem to indicate they have more genetic links to the Japanese than the Han Chinese do to the Japanese. The Tibetan language is quite distinct, being classified as part of the Tibeto-Burman branch of the larger Sino-Tibetan group.

Accept it. China’s claims to Tibet are weak and imperialist. China has enforced the claims in a more brutal way than NZ was colonised by the British.

By promoting foreign ownership of farms we may well be putting the ownership of farms out of the reach of young New Zealand farmers because pricing may now be determined by richer foreign countries wanting a peice of the farming pie in NZ. At present the amount of farm land owned by foreigners is in all probability very low but we need to be asking ouselves some questions is how much is too much and whether this is in the best interests of our most valuable industry.

It is irrelevent to the debate whether Labour sold more. Equally Williamsons jumping up and down about racism driving peoples objections to the Crafar deal is also irrelevant to the debate that should be had.

Now increased foreign ownership of our farms may be fine and having NZ farmers as lessees also may be a great future model but it sounds a bit fucked up to me. I do not see the benefit apart from giving some current farm owners more in the way of tax free capital gains. I do not see foreign owners bringing new production methodology, smarter management or even greater access to markets we currently do not trade with so what is the benefit apart from higher land prices and a slow erosion of our balance of payments.

It would be interesting to see how easy it is for NZ farming concerns to purhcase farm land in those countries where these foreign investors are comming from. I can imagine in some of the countries it may well be possible and others not a chance.

The Mongolians of inner Mongolia are not indigenous. The Mongolians originated somewhere just south of Lake Baikal, came down and slaughtered the Tanguts and Han Chinese who use to live in the area of Inner Mongolia.

THe Uighers are also not indigenous to Xinjiang province.

Tibet has been part of China for centuries.

Compare the conditions of the ethnic minorities in China with the Australian aborigines, the Maoris, the Native Americans. The Anglo Saxons killed off most of them, or totally swamped them to such an extent that they can barely put up any resistance now. Whereas in China, the percentage of Uighers in Xinjiang, Tibetans in Tibet, and Mongolians in Inner Mongolia far exceeds that of the indigenous in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand. And they all speak their own languages as well in everyday life. Can the same be said of the indigenous peoples in the Anglo Saxon countries outside of Britain.

As for the Chinese in Africa, of course there are positives and negatives. The Western media concentrates on the negatives. But the Africans find the positives to far outweigh the negatives. The thing is Africa, as a whole, as experienced its greatest rate of growth (4% per annum), over the past decade, which has of course corresponded with increasing Chinese engagement with the continent.

A BBC poll recently carried out:

“Asked how they view the possibility of an economically far stronger China, around four in five Nigerians and Kenyans said they looked forward to such an outcome, according to the survey of more than 28,000 people in 27 countries commissioned by the BBC World Service. “All African countries view China’s increasing economic power positively,” the survey report said”

http://en.m4.cn/archives/6679.html

Pew research polls align with the BBC results:

http://pewglobal.org/2010/06/17/obama-more-popular-abroad-than-at-home/6/

And the Africans it seems find the Chinese fairer to deal with than Westerners:
“The consensus prevails among African countries as well with regard to how they consider China’s fairness in the way it trades with its partners…….On average, in the continent, China is considered the fairest partner, with an average fairness score of 7.02 on a 0–10 scale, ahead of the US (6.61) and the EU (6.52).”

The original full report is here:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar11/BBCChina_Mar11_rpt.pdf

When it comes down to it, the Chinese aren’t perfect. But they sure as hell are better than European interlopers. At least the Chinese pay for the stuff they take.

And the Chinese paid top dollar for the Crafar farms. Whereas the Anglo Saxons just came and either confiscated the land outright, or paid for it in a few beads and blankets.

Is this straight from the Mao school of propaganda, Wang or Wayne? The ethnic group you smear includes people who are quite warm towards Beijing. For example, John Ki and the Lands Baron, Maurice Williams-Sung. You mustn’t judge all Anglo-Saxons by them, but I think it’s harsh to apply these terms even to these two.

Wayne, you mistakenly think that in this thread I condemned Mugabe and Chinese in Zimbabwe.

Perhaps Wayne, you mistake me for another poster who spoke of problems with Chinese investment in Zimbabwe. Perhaps that poster in turn confused Zimbabwe with Zambia where,rightly or wrongly, there seems to be tension over the settlement of as many as 80,000 Chinese in the country. (The Guardian link below gives the background).

Wayne, you also wrote in your 1.59 post:

Look at Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and before parts of Africa. All stolen.

Of course, Wayne, Red Han Chinese have bought Tibet, Sinkiang, and Inner Mongolia from their indigenous peoples, who have been willing, indeed happy, sellers. Yeah, right. It’s a coincide that the (Han) People’s Liberation Army was chief negotiator for Beijing in these regions.

Mao and his successors in Beijing would not countenance giving these indigenous peoples equivalents of the Waitangi Treaty. If the takeover was so civilised, how, Wayne, do you explain the quite recent ethnic riots against Beijing in these three regions?

PS: By Anglo-Saxons, Wayne, I’m guessing you don’t mean all Europeans whose skin is white, but those who originate in the British Isles. Bit narrow. So is “white”. Many white-skinned people come from northern China (Manchu, Uighurs, northern Han), Japan, parts (geographic or castes of) India, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, North Africa etc, etc. Also Anglo-Saxons are now pretty thoroughly intermingled with others. How about “Westerners”. That covers the point, and you can bring in the excesses of Conquistadores. And of Alexander the Great. And of the Tsars in Siberia. All non-Anglo Saxon. On the other hand, Wayne, you may think that everyone in the world under 40 is now a “greedy Western mother fucker”. Rather than Marx and Mao, what has triumphed is the international appeal of these things: American pop culture, satellite and cable TV, the Internet, Western-style capitalism, democracy, and the English language.

PPS: Ask your Beijing mates to give Cantonese a fair go on Chinese state TV.

LINK about Chinese in Zambia that may be relevant to points by Wayne and some other poster:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,2007803,00.html

The Tibetans got nothing like the Treaty of Waitangi. China has poured Han Chinese into Tibet, and into the Sinkiang (Xinjiang) homeland of the Uighurs, a Turkic people. Hundreds have been left dead and injured in ethnic riots in the Singkiang city of Urumqui.

Well preventing Han pouring into Tibet and Xinjiang, is a bit like preventing Pakeha from ‘pouring’ into Whangerei and the Ureweras. And Tibetans and Uighurs respectively make up a far larger proportion of the population of Tibet and Xinjiang than any indigenous peoples colonised by Anglo Saxons. And they still speak their own languages. And have state sponsored TV and radio in their own languages. Way before Maori TV ever came into being. Anyone who has visited those places can tell you that.

It is Anglo Saxons who are the most greedy motherfuckers when it comes to land. The Chinese come here and pay top dollar for the Crafar farms. The poms came and swapped land for a few dirty blankets, at best, or just stole the rest.

Look at Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, and before parts of Africa. All stolen.

And the Anglo Saxons enjoyed dominion over India, and China for over a century emptying those places of their wealth.

Think of it this way. Asians own about 7% of 1% of NZ farmland. That is 0.07%

The poms went into Zimbabwe (and Kenya) after the war and stole fucking 60% of farmland and simply drove the local inhabitants off the land. They paid nothing for it.

And yet when Mugabe wants to rid himself of these white thieves, people like Jack5 would come down on him like a ton of bricks.

In other words it is OK for whites to own 60% of the land in a black African country (for free) but not Asians 0.07% (for which they paid top dollar).

Jack5. You are a transparent racist hypocrite.

Jack5 you are

I supplied cogent reasons for my post. The polling results I mentioned i think were even conducted by DPF’s company, I could be wrong, but he posted them here, anyway.

My position on the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict is exactly that held by the US State Department. Are they racist, too?

Is that so? You are saying that the objection is founded solely on the ground that they are chinese and that the chinese, as a race, are objectionable and should be shunned. It has nothing, then, to do with the perception that the practices adopted by the Chinese government are unpalatable and that NZ and China do not appear to share quite the same commercial and human rights values?

On that basis, your criticisms of Israel can have no explanation other then deep seated racist views. Or you apply different standards to yourself.

Opposition melts away for any European purchasers.

it’s racism, pure and simple.

Personally, I think a country should always keep a careful eye on such things, as our governments do, but generally, we need outside capital. And I would much rather the land was owned by Chinese, managed by Landcorp, than owned, leveraged, stripped and sold off by one of our leading Robber Barons

As for the talk of “private deal”, I deduce you are a libertarian, a rare breed in NZ. About as numerous as the kakapo.

All these stations are managed and staffed by locals. All the rates are paid to Gisborne District Council. All the wages are spent between Opotiki and Gisborne, all th GST and PAYE from these weages are paid to the New Zealnd Government

Tax on earnings for these properties are paid to the New Zweakland Governemtn as are ACC levies etc.

All these stations and farms are to the very wealthy are an investment, like gold, like shares like start up funds for companies. They are just looking for a return on investment.

If there comes a time when the arse falls out of dairy , and god forbid, these Crafar farms may come back on the market and if we have been good little soldiers we might be able to buy them, until then its really a private deal between the bank and someone with a wallet.

And as Keeping Stock stated yesterday, this is privately owned land.

Read the bloody agreement.
Landcorp are contracted to run all the farms, in perpetuity of the ownership.
Can Landcorp employ Chinese, any more than Maori – yes if they have work permits.

However,on following his link I find that what is happening is that Chinese developers are borrowing abroad by issuing bonds. This is different from buying freehold land, as Maurice Williams-Sung and John Ki are allowing the Chinese to do in the Crafar case.

In an earlier post, Wayne’s World said this:

I think these minority groups are not doing too badly compared to indigenous New Zealanders, Australians, and Americans. Most still speak their own languages for one. And they are a much bigger proportion of the population in their respective areas than is the case for indigenous peoples under Anglo Saxon rule.

Really? The Tibetans got nothing like the Treaty of Waitangi. China has poured Han Chinese into Tibet, and into the Sinkiang (Xinjiang) homeland of the Uighurs, a Turkic people. Hundreds have been left dead and injured in ethnic riots in the Singkiang city of Urumqui. Ethnic Mongolians are now a minority in Inner Mongolia to Han Chinese. The Mongolian Republic (outer Mongolia) remained independent of China thanks to first, White Russian military support, then to protection by the Soviet Union. In this independent Mongolia Han Chinese make up less than 0.1 per cent of the population. There has also been violent ethnic unrest in Inner Mongolia in the last 12 months.

As for the language: NZ has set up a taxpayer-funded Maori TV channel to try to help the Maori language survive. In China, where there are several distinct spoken languages but one written language, the opposite seems to be occurring. My understanding is that pressure is on Cantonese-language TV to be replaced by Mandarin-language TV. In other words, the marvellously rich Cantonese language is under pressure from Beijing.

What’s that got to do with anything? Chinese can’t buy land either in China. It all belongs to the government, and is leased.

They had a communist revolution 60 years ago where a whole bunch of landowners were taken out and shot. You not heard of that?

But foreigners, as Chinese do, certainly can and do invest in real estate in China (the land is leased).

http://www.propertywire.com/news/asia/china-foreign-property-investment-201104015071.html

The argument is not “they did it more!” The argument is “it’s none of the government’s business who this private concern sells their land to”. Why is that so hard for John Key to say?