|
Another trouble spot for liberalism is Fiji that provides a number of lessons. The Fijians feel themselves economically and politically disadvantaged by the predominance of Indians brought to their island last century as laborers by colonial business interests. The situation provides a lesson as to how plutocracy treats people as economic units devoid of nationality, who can be transposed, to any geographic location in the world as per the demands of business.
George Speight, the charismatic Fijian rebel leader has struck a chord with the Fijian people in his demand for a Fiji for Fijians, rejecting a constitution that delivers Fiji to the Indian element.
Naturally the liberal news media are appalled by such a display of patriotism and the fact that there are people still left in some parts of our region who are willing to ACT militantly rather than play politely. Perhaps most perplexing and distressing of all to New Zealanders was the televised interview with Speight's media spokesman, Nata. When challenged by a NZ newsman that Fiji risks a rugby boycott, Nata replied that the interests of Fiji take precedence over a mere game of rugby. Blasphemy! How could anyone possess such, fanatical views? How could anyone feel that his or her nation was of more consequence than rugby? Certainly not New Zealanders. And if I recall correctly, certainly not the Afrikaners who voted their nation out of existence largely around the desire to end SA's isolation in world rugby.
|
|
