In the culture that a lot of New Zealanders identify with, it has evolved to also mean a long and determined attempt to achieve something that you believe in strongly, a positive meaning.
But now lots of people have decided that because someone committed a heinous crime against a certain section of the immigrant community, anything that could potentially offend that community must be banished. Why is that? Do we all have to subvert our own culture to make them feel more comfortable?
Did these people not realise that their new country does not have the same view of their history as they might? Are they purporting to say that all that one side did was wrong and everything the other side did was right, and what's more you (we) have to change any references in our history and culture that don't align with their world view? Really?
Are the Turks in New Zealand going to lobby to have the name or the commemoration of Anzac banished because it offends them?
I accept that in many nations, names and any form of commemoration of explorers and pioneers, colonists, anyone who is deemed to be on the wrong side of history is slowly being wiped from the face of the land. But those movements are taking place in the home land of people leading them. Not by people who have moved from one part of the world to another.
One can only imagine how such a demand would be received if the roles were reversed.