![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldI'd like to thank reader Errol Cavit for letting me know that, according to New Zealand census-takers, the old divisions in the country between Pākehā/New Zealand European ancestry and those of Māori background, never mind more recent immigrants from the Pacific Islands, Asia, and elsewhere, seem to be fading, as Brian Rudman wrote in the New Zealand Herald.
This is an unpopular decision among statisticians, it seems.
More fairly, perhaps, these statisticians are concerned that without accurate statistics it will be difficult to target programs towards relatively disadvantaged ethnic minorities.
One blogger suggests that these responses mark the birth of a distinct New Zealand ethnicity. While this may well be true, it shouldn't be overblown--in Canada's 2001 census, "22.77% of respondents gave a single response of 'Canadian', while a further 16.65% identified with both 'Canadian', and one or more other ancestries." English Canada was settled a half-century before New Zealand, French Canada more than two centuries, so it makes sense to me that a distinctive New Zealanderness would take some time to form. Barring unforeseen changes like ethnic conflict, the steady New Zealandization of New Zealand's population produced by increased intermingling of population will probably be a durable trend.
At the 2006 Census, 429,429 (11.12 per cent) of us refused to play their ethnic game and called ourselves "New Zealander".
[. . .]
It seems that the 78,000 (2.4 per cent) troublemakers who entered "Kiwi" or "New Zealander" in the 2001 Census were an irritant that could be tolerated.
This is an unpopular decision among statisticians, it seems.
Statistics New Zealand issued a discussion paper on the issue and called for public feedback. But the paper makes it plain that the "experts" consulted want no change in the system. Specifically, the paper is against adding a new ethnicity tick box, "New Zealander".
Until now, most self-identifying "New Zealanders" have been Pakeha who don't regard themselves as European and have said so by registering in the "other" category. The experts fear that if this is simplified by adding a tick box in the next census, the flood gates will be opened as people of all sort of ethnicities join the rebellion.
More fairly, perhaps, these statisticians are concerned that without accurate statistics it will be difficult to target programs towards relatively disadvantaged ethnic minorities.
One blogger suggests that these responses mark the birth of a distinct New Zealand ethnicity. While this may well be true, it shouldn't be overblown--in Canada's 2001 census, "22.77% of respondents gave a single response of 'Canadian', while a further 16.65% identified with both 'Canadian', and one or more other ancestries." English Canada was settled a half-century before New Zealand, French Canada more than two centuries, so it makes sense to me that a distinctive New Zealanderness would take some time to form. Barring unforeseen changes like ethnic conflict, the steady New Zealandization of New Zealand's population produced by increased intermingling of population will probably be a durable trend.
