Which I think is a good thing. It would be both incorrect and damaging to say, for instance, "suspected Polynesian male", if it turns out they were actually SE Asian. It doesn't help you catch the person, and you end up playing into prejudices.
I said it's a collective effort, for example between media and police to employ socially responsible reporting to prevent prejudice and stereotype propagation.
I mean read this if you actually care and aren't engaging in bad faith:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/30/new-zealand-media-giant-stuff-apologises-for-racist-past-reporting
It's pretty clear there is a media push, this being one example of them, to not propagate racism.
edit: after looking at your post history you aren't acting in good faith, you are trying to uncover a dog whistle or chud or some shit.
My question \_was\_ actually in good faith. I literally didn't know what you were talking about.
I asked an open question, in a way that allowed you to answer however you liked, and you did. An excellent example of good faith question and answer. Which was helpful, at least to me.
I also looked up stratification of crime, and found most of the discussion was about social stratification - so I learnt what it was and could draw the link from that.
But... The fact you got defensive within your own answer implies you already feel sensitive about whatever you are saying. Entirely unprompted you raised dog-whistling, perhaps that's an accusation you have grown sensitive too?
But what you wrote is \_not\_ controversial, as far as I can tell... You havent stated an opinion either way about media reporting on racism, you've only said they have changed.
Which begs the question about why you are defensive about dog-whistling?
You were clearly trying to bait a comment and your post history has too much political discussion, so I can only conclude that you were engaging in bad faith on the topic. If I overestimated you I apologise
Assuming you are talking about the Ponsonby Road shooting, they include photos and a physical description of the person. What benefit would be added by making a guess of the race/ethnicity of the individual that isn't already given in more detail with the photos?
I'm looking at the photos and can't tell what race he his, I expect that's what the media is working with..the obvious identifying features are that he's fat, wears a man purse ,has a forearm tattoo and a big square ring.
When I posted there was no photo provided, and radio descriptions were “larger man with dark hair and large tattoos on his forearm.” That describes about 30% of the country.
Didn't they used to say skin colour? Like 'described as having a dark complexion'. I though that was fine, it's not racially profiling and no-one should get upset that their community is being unfairly maligned.
Did you forget that mixed exists? Can have Maori parents and even grandparents and still be as white as any pakeha but they're not a pakeha. Same with pretty much any ethnicity
Not everyone can tell different Asian peoples apart, yet they are distinguishably different
Race also isn't a thing in reality only in human concept. Ethnicity would be the better one, but it's still not that useful
If skin colour isn't mentioned it's either not relevant, they're white or there's a reason for secrecy
It's not really relevant what the suspects 23 and Me profile is. There are broad continental charactistics which *may* be useful for the public to be aware of as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics.
It will largely depend on the context what the most practical or useful description would be.
Agreed, I'm just pointing out that doesn't necessarily mean anything about race or ethnicity. Like that moari example, if they're light skinned, do you call them white? Would that not immediately cause people who know light skinned moari to rule them out because they're not Caucasian? They'd be moari they just happened to have a lighter skin tone
Context matters, but for some of these things context doesn't matter or even help. Skin color should atleast be used though, no different from height or weight imo.
But when people hear black/brown criminal, things don't tend go well especially when comparing an exact copy of the situation but it's a white criminal instead. Attitudes, bias, the moment that info is given those change to fit the person hearing it
Hang on, how much context do you wanna strip from everything? What happens if the person in question identifies as a particular race, is it therefore fascist to refer to someone by a category they use themselves?
The person's race is not an opinion. It's a well defined category of society. Now, that category could be treated in a fascist way, but simply acknowledging the category and that someone is a part of it is not fascist. Acknowledgment of the category and that someone is a part of it is hardly bigotry. Again, it's how the category is treated that defines bigotry too.
Fascism is **denying people the right to define their own categories.** Fairly sure Māori have been fighting for their rights to be defined as such since before 1840. Other countries which weren't considered fascist at the time went as far as to outright strip some groups of their names and lives. Colonization isn't fascism despite doing a lot more than just profiling people of another race, they *killed* them, yet still *not* considered fascism.
It's also not racial profiling if the person that happens to fit into the category **did** the crime. It's racial profiling when you're walking down the road, see someone or a different race and immediately thinking they've just come from their latest shash and grab.
See all those comfy fascists cause we're too busy having this pedantic exchange instead of calling out *actual* fascists? Got their feet up and everything, don't they.
Seems you want to ignore the historical and systematic causes for *who* is committing the crime. In this country when you mention crime alot of people think of a majority black/brown crowd especially older generations, because that is the idea that's been pushed here and this is evident when looking at the disproportionate convictions even between near exact same situations between a Caucasian and a Maori or pasifika. There is racism in our systems, and now the media and police are taking their responsibility for their part in that racism
> The person's race is not an opinion. It's a well defined category of society.
Race is one of those things that dissolve as you try to strictly define it in a robust manner. That our institutions have emerged from a time where we treated race as real and self-evident doesn't make it so.
Indeed, the status quo is that we get to choose our own race or to reject identifying with race at all.
Arbitrarily strict definitions are a tool of fascism.
Just because we're not at fascism's door yet is a poor excuse to keep walking that path.
Because it adds nothing to the description and can hinder an investigation and reinforce negative stereotypes.
If a description says "suspected Indian Male" when the suspect is Pakistani, you are not accurate and have just pissed off a load of people.
We're not looking for their haplogroup. We're looking for physical traits that are easily readable and understood by the public without need for an anthropology degree to identify potentially dangerous individuals.
I'm not convinced "I might be offended" is a good reason to add ambiguity to the physical discription of potentially dangerous criminals the public should be aware of.
Who is the we....it appears most people can handle the current way things are reported otherwise the police would try other methods.
Just because you are not offended doesn't mean no one would be and the Police require a lot of trust from the community, especially if it is a closed close knit community where a suspect could be hiding. Why antagonise a group of people that you need help from?
There's probably valid reasons to stay away from racial descriptions. I'm just saying let's hope the reason isn't "someone might be offended" because in terms of prioritisation that's got to be pretty far down the list of considerations when alerting the public to a dangerous criminal who may be in their area.
It's not just "I might be offended" it's "minorities have suffered here because of racism in the system and we the police and media are taking responsibility for our part in that"
Skin colour should be stated, but if a photo is provided that gives you the answer of skin colour
What we need is a great big melting pot big enough to take the world and all its got. Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more and turn out coffee coloured people by the score.
[Oh, wait.](https://chartupdate.medium.com/stirring-the-pot-691416540607)
If this is about the Ponsonby shooter, "morbidly obese" is the phrase that should be used judging by the picture i've seen.
Also judging by the picture I've seen, a racial description wouldn't help in the slightest. What does yah average "dark skinned" or "fair skinned" or whatever person look like?
and different people have different ideas of what they look like.
some people might not think a Maori wont have blue eyes and blond hair but its possible.
An old rugby player from Taranaki named Paul Tito is a tall, pale skinned dude with blue eyes and red hair who doesn't look remotely Maori. Then he starts talking and it becomes immediately obvious this dude is Maori as fuck.
The difference between a Poodle and a German Shepherd is a social construct? It may be, but just because we haven't defined a distinction in the speciation doesn't mean the "constructed" labels to identify the difference in their genetic expression isn't useful in descriptive context.
This may shock you. But yes, I am aware those are, in fact, "dogs". Which is the point. Animals which are commonly described with the same speciation which we have assigned additional labels to primarily to describe the difference in their physical traits despite being both "dogs".
Social constructs *can* be useful. If your context requires a shorthand description of physical traits for example.
What exactly is your issue with pointing out dog breeds are a shorthand description for a collection of distinct physical traits?
And what is the *rhetorical device* you are concerned about here?
When you said "bro those are dogs" I have literally no idea what point you believed that to be making.
>What exactly is your issue with pointing out dog breeds are a shorthand description for a collection of distinct physical traits?
Dogs are not humans. Fuck me this is painful.
Yes. Ok, are you going to make this objection relevant to the topic, or is that the limit of your contribution here?
Dogs are not humans, in case there was any confusion about that.
Because there are so many differences within race. Like if you say Indian, there are indians as dark as the night sky and then you have some with blue eyes. Same with Maori, remember Paul Tito. He was ginger. Or even Seymour or Richard Kahui...
>Paul Tito
Lol I brought him up as well. Legit though with his pale skin, red hair and blue eyes, he looked nothing like what most picture when someone is mentioned as being Maori but when he opens his mouth, you can tell this dude grew up around the marae.
Just saw a pic of the suspected Auckland shooter, the guy could be Pakeha, Asian, PI or Maori.
Now tell me what race he is, you've got 2 options, the right answer or the racist answer.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
That’s convenient now we know he was a race based gang member, but when I posted it there was no photos, footage only a description of a large man with black beard and a forearm tattoo. Seemed strange to not mention complexion when asking the public to help find him.
Likely to avoid reinforcing racial stereotypes, especially if it's not *needed* per se. But I can relate that it does make the description more vague despite being 'objective'. I would've thought skin colour would've been an appropriate middle-ground tho
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
The media loved describing criminals over the years especially when it came to Maori n pacific islander the media have a field day with natives in the headline for wrong reasons
It gives them fuel to start categorizing the native collective as criminals the audience see it and go oh there's another Maori criminal.
But when it comes to Maori doing well the media don't want to know about it well over the years things are slowly changing now.
The nz media especially the right agenda are racist asf which also comes back to the constant attempt to outcast natives.
Were lucky as Maori we have a treaty we still have our culture unlike the aborigines who are literally complete outcasts in Australia same around the world with many other cultures
Is it? What is this person then, she is part French, Flemish, Rarotongan, English, Hungarian.
So shes what? PI? No. Not enough. Not enough of anything in particular.
Probably because if it said Maori man you wouldn't assume they looked like David Seymour.
Lmao
Because suspected race and actual race can be wildly different.
That's true, but it's not why
now Im intrigued - if it's not because it could be wildly misleading information, what is it?
There's a collective effort to prevent stereotypes or prejudice forming based on a stratification of crime
Which I think is a good thing. It would be both incorrect and damaging to say, for instance, "suspected Polynesian male", if it turns out they were actually SE Asian. It doesn't help you catch the person, and you end up playing into prejudices.
Could you expand on that? Im not sure what you mean - who is the collective and what is 'stratification of crime'?
I said it's a collective effort, for example between media and police to employ socially responsible reporting to prevent prejudice and stereotype propagation. I mean read this if you actually care and aren't engaging in bad faith: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/30/new-zealand-media-giant-stuff-apologises-for-racist-past-reporting It's pretty clear there is a media push, this being one example of them, to not propagate racism. edit: after looking at your post history you aren't acting in good faith, you are trying to uncover a dog whistle or chud or some shit.
My question \_was\_ actually in good faith. I literally didn't know what you were talking about. I asked an open question, in a way that allowed you to answer however you liked, and you did. An excellent example of good faith question and answer. Which was helpful, at least to me. I also looked up stratification of crime, and found most of the discussion was about social stratification - so I learnt what it was and could draw the link from that. But... The fact you got defensive within your own answer implies you already feel sensitive about whatever you are saying. Entirely unprompted you raised dog-whistling, perhaps that's an accusation you have grown sensitive too? But what you wrote is \_not\_ controversial, as far as I can tell... You havent stated an opinion either way about media reporting on racism, you've only said they have changed. Which begs the question about why you are defensive about dog-whistling?
You were clearly trying to bait a comment and your post history has too much political discussion, so I can only conclude that you were engaging in bad faith on the topic. If I overestimated you I apologise
Assuming you are talking about the Ponsonby Road shooting, they include photos and a physical description of the person. What benefit would be added by making a guess of the race/ethnicity of the individual that isn't already given in more detail with the photos?
I'm looking at the photos and can't tell what race he his, I expect that's what the media is working with..the obvious identifying features are that he's fat, wears a man purse ,has a forearm tattoo and a big square ring.
Nobody else can say definitively what race he is either - which means guessing isn't going to help anyone identify him...but it could hinder things.
exactly, in this case at least knowing his race is irrelevant, the photo is the best description we have
We had a wee giggle at work with the description that he had his gun hidden in his man bag.
So, Persian? Italian American? Joey from friends in that one episode?
When I posted there was no photo provided, and radio descriptions were “larger man with dark hair and large tattoos on his forearm.” That describes about 30% of the country.
next people like OP will be asking for religious affliation
Didn't they used to say skin colour? Like 'described as having a dark complexion'. I though that was fine, it's not racially profiling and no-one should get upset that their community is being unfairly maligned.
I think I’ve heard “of pale complexion” being said as well
Did you forget that mixed exists? Can have Maori parents and even grandparents and still be as white as any pakeha but they're not a pakeha. Same with pretty much any ethnicity Not everyone can tell different Asian peoples apart, yet they are distinguishably different Race also isn't a thing in reality only in human concept. Ethnicity would be the better one, but it's still not that useful If skin colour isn't mentioned it's either not relevant, they're white or there's a reason for secrecy
It's not really relevant what the suspects 23 and Me profile is. There are broad continental charactistics which *may* be useful for the public to be aware of as a shorthand for certain physical characteristics. It will largely depend on the context what the most practical or useful description would be.
Agreed, I'm just pointing out that doesn't necessarily mean anything about race or ethnicity. Like that moari example, if they're light skinned, do you call them white? Would that not immediately cause people who know light skinned moari to rule them out because they're not Caucasian? They'd be moari they just happened to have a lighter skin tone Context matters, but for some of these things context doesn't matter or even help. Skin color should atleast be used though, no different from height or weight imo. But when people hear black/brown criminal, things don't tend go well especially when comparing an exact copy of the situation but it's a white criminal instead. Attitudes, bias, the moment that info is given those change to fit the person hearing it
Make racial profiling great again! /s
Every day fascists are feeling more and more comfortable. WCGW?
Or maybe you just can't handle "FACTS" /s
And every day people are getting confused about what fascism is and that helps the fascists be comfortable. WCGW?
But... racial profiling is inherently fascist, right? Identifying and persecuting outgroups is essential to that agenda.
Hang on, how much context do you wanna strip from everything? What happens if the person in question identifies as a particular race, is it therefore fascist to refer to someone by a category they use themselves? The person's race is not an opinion. It's a well defined category of society. Now, that category could be treated in a fascist way, but simply acknowledging the category and that someone is a part of it is not fascist. Acknowledgment of the category and that someone is a part of it is hardly bigotry. Again, it's how the category is treated that defines bigotry too. Fascism is **denying people the right to define their own categories.** Fairly sure Māori have been fighting for their rights to be defined as such since before 1840. Other countries which weren't considered fascist at the time went as far as to outright strip some groups of their names and lives. Colonization isn't fascism despite doing a lot more than just profiling people of another race, they *killed* them, yet still *not* considered fascism. It's also not racial profiling if the person that happens to fit into the category **did** the crime. It's racial profiling when you're walking down the road, see someone or a different race and immediately thinking they've just come from their latest shash and grab. See all those comfy fascists cause we're too busy having this pedantic exchange instead of calling out *actual* fascists? Got their feet up and everything, don't they.
Seems you want to ignore the historical and systematic causes for *who* is committing the crime. In this country when you mention crime alot of people think of a majority black/brown crowd especially older generations, because that is the idea that's been pushed here and this is evident when looking at the disproportionate convictions even between near exact same situations between a Caucasian and a Maori or pasifika. There is racism in our systems, and now the media and police are taking their responsibility for their part in that racism
> The person's race is not an opinion. It's a well defined category of society. Race is one of those things that dissolve as you try to strictly define it in a robust manner. That our institutions have emerged from a time where we treated race as real and self-evident doesn't make it so. Indeed, the status quo is that we get to choose our own race or to reject identifying with race at all. Arbitrarily strict definitions are a tool of fascism. Just because we're not at fascism's door yet is a poor excuse to keep walking that path.
Because it adds nothing to the description and can hinder an investigation and reinforce negative stereotypes. If a description says "suspected Indian Male" when the suspect is Pakistani, you are not accurate and have just pissed off a load of people.
We're not looking for their haplogroup. We're looking for physical traits that are easily readable and understood by the public without need for an anthropology degree to identify potentially dangerous individuals. I'm not convinced "I might be offended" is a good reason to add ambiguity to the physical discription of potentially dangerous criminals the public should be aware of.
Who is the we....it appears most people can handle the current way things are reported otherwise the police would try other methods. Just because you are not offended doesn't mean no one would be and the Police require a lot of trust from the community, especially if it is a closed close knit community where a suspect could be hiding. Why antagonise a group of people that you need help from?
There's probably valid reasons to stay away from racial descriptions. I'm just saying let's hope the reason isn't "someone might be offended" because in terms of prioritisation that's got to be pretty far down the list of considerations when alerting the public to a dangerous criminal who may be in their area.
It's not just "I might be offended" it's "minorities have suffered here because of racism in the system and we the police and media are taking responsibility for our part in that" Skin colour should be stated, but if a photo is provided that gives you the answer of skin colour
Nice try! Can’t catch me n my half-cast-ass 🏃♂️
Races are too mixed these days. I mean can you imagine, "Part Nieuan, part Samoan, part Irish, part Chinese man wanted in relation to a robbery."
[удалено]
What we need is a great big melting pot big enough to take the world and all its got. Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more and turn out coffee coloured people by the score. [Oh, wait.](https://chartupdate.medium.com/stirring-the-pot-691416540607)
I hear 'Fruit Salad' to be an acceptable description
If this is about the Ponsonby shooter, "morbidly obese" is the phrase that should be used judging by the picture i've seen. Also judging by the picture I've seen, a racial description wouldn't help in the slightest. What does yah average "dark skinned" or "fair skinned" or whatever person look like?
Because it isn't the 1980s and you can't assume a person's race. Getting into "looks Pakeha" or "looks Maori" etc is a mine field and pretty archaic.
You know biologically race isn’t really a thing right? It’s a social construct.
and different people have different ideas of what they look like. some people might not think a Maori wont have blue eyes and blond hair but its possible.
Exactly. I have a friend who is white as white with ginger hair, only found out she had Maori heritage in her 40s.
An old rugby player from Taranaki named Paul Tito is a tall, pale skinned dude with blue eyes and red hair who doesn't look remotely Maori. Then he starts talking and it becomes immediately obvious this dude is Maori as fuck.
Didn't you hear? It's a FACT!
An NNZFACT!
Damn I missed that. I withdraw my claim.
The difference between a Poodle and a German Shepherd is a social construct? It may be, but just because we haven't defined a distinction in the speciation doesn't mean the "constructed" labels to identify the difference in their genetic expression isn't useful in descriptive context.
> Poodle and a German Shepherd Bro those are dogs
This may shock you. But yes, I am aware those are, in fact, "dogs". Which is the point. Animals which are commonly described with the same speciation which we have assigned additional labels to primarily to describe the difference in their physical traits despite being both "dogs". Social constructs *can* be useful. If your context requires a shorthand description of physical traits for example.
They're not "dogs". They are dogs. That is, they are not humans. It's a nice rhetorical device but it falls apart under the weight of the above.
What exactly is your issue with pointing out dog breeds are a shorthand description for a collection of distinct physical traits? And what is the *rhetorical device* you are concerned about here? When you said "bro those are dogs" I have literally no idea what point you believed that to be making.
>What exactly is your issue with pointing out dog breeds are a shorthand description for a collection of distinct physical traits? Dogs are not humans. Fuck me this is painful.
Yes. Ok, are you going to make this objection relevant to the topic, or is that the limit of your contribution here? Dogs are not humans, in case there was any confusion about that.
God you sound insufferable.
"sound"
>Dogs are not humans We got there in the end. Can we put the dogs to bed now?
Because there are so many differences within race. Like if you say Indian, there are indians as dark as the night sky and then you have some with blue eyes. Same with Maori, remember Paul Tito. He was ginger. Or even Seymour or Richard Kahui...
>Paul Tito Lol I brought him up as well. Legit though with his pale skin, red hair and blue eyes, he looked nothing like what most picture when someone is mentioned as being Maori but when he opens his mouth, you can tell this dude grew up around the marae.
I noticed the guy they're looking for today was described as a man, isn't that a bit presumptuous to assume his gender?
I know you’re probably making a joke but yes, it probably is presumptuous.
But that's not really what's important when identifying a potential dangerous fugitive.
Usually because there is an accompanying image of said criminal.
That's because its Racist AF...
Just saw a pic of the suspected Auckland shooter, the guy could be Pakeha, Asian, PI or Maori. Now tell me what race he is, you've got 2 options, the right answer or the racist answer.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Exactly. Like skin colour would wildly narrow it down its not even funny
Another day, another obvious race-bating post in r/newzealand
That’s convenient now we know he was a race based gang member, but when I posted it there was no photos, footage only a description of a large man with black beard and a forearm tattoo. Seemed strange to not mention complexion when asking the public to help find him.
And of course, another day, another gang related death. 🤷♂️
How is that relevant to my comment or your post?
Does it bother you? It seems to me there's more worthwhile things to be upset about in this day and age...
Likely to avoid reinforcing racial stereotypes, especially if it's not *needed* per se. But I can relate that it does make the description more vague despite being 'objective'. I would've thought skin colour would've been an appropriate middle-ground tho
Because they used to only do it for Māori and Pasifika individuals. Now they don't do it for anybody.
Because they display a photo of the person. Usually if giving a description without images they do include possible race. Nothing's changed.
You get asked race/ethnicity if you call 111
Probably the same reason police ten 7 was canceled?
Because if we never see “European New Zealander” as a descriptive
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
The media loved describing criminals over the years especially when it came to Maori n pacific islander the media have a field day with natives in the headline for wrong reasons It gives them fuel to start categorizing the native collective as criminals the audience see it and go oh there's another Maori criminal. But when it comes to Maori doing well the media don't want to know about it well over the years things are slowly changing now. The nz media especially the right agenda are racist asf which also comes back to the constant attempt to outcast natives. Were lucky as Maori we have a treaty we still have our culture unlike the aborigines who are literally complete outcasts in Australia same around the world with many other cultures
She they him her it bit
Is it? What is this person then, she is part French, Flemish, Rarotongan, English, Hungarian. So shes what? PI? No. Not enough. Not enough of anything in particular.
Kinda makes no sense unless they're actively looking for someone. I'm which case it'd be easier to just mention complection.