Audioblog: Metiria on the Maori Purposes Bill

Haven’t had an audioblog for ages, and Metiria delivered an excellent speech on the Maori Purposes Bill in Parliament last week, so it seemed like a good time. You can download the speech as an mp3, or listen to it streamed.

It’s definitely worth checking out. She uses material from The Hollow Men to attack both National and Labour on Maori issues, and outlines why the Green Party is strongly opposed to setting a deadline for lodging historical Treaty grievances.

At one point, while she is detailing the cynical tactics behind Don Brash’s first Orewa speech, National’s Anne Tolley raises a point of order demanding to know what that has to do with the bill. The answer, of course, is that without the dog-whistle politics of that speech whipping the country into a frenzy, the Government would not now be legislating to set a deadline for Treaty claims, since the only reason that policy evolved was in an attempt to respond in kind to National’s racist rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the bill subsequently passed, with only the Greens and the Maori Party voting against it.

160 thoughts on “Audioblog: Metiria on the Maori Purposes Bill

  1. A most excellent speech indeed and a very astute analysis of how Brash’s vile speech has perverted the progress of Treaty reparation in this country.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  2. I am surprised that the greens support such blatantly racist policies.

    If Dr Brash is remembered for one thing I hope it is his Orewa speech, it was about time somebody had the guts to bring this into the open.

    This treaty reparation rubbish (aka the treaty gravy train) has to stop, until then we will never make any real progress with race relations in this country.

    One law for all and an end to race based law, schools and sporting teams.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  3. I think Hagers book proves that if you put a microphone in a toilet you hear people fart.

    The Orewa speech was infamously successful because it just echoed what the public think. It may be unfair to put a time limit on Treaty settlements, but it is dumb of the Greens to want to validate the Maori version of the Treaty, in the interests of (naieve and missguided) justice.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  4. Big Bruv, if I steal your house, how long do I have to hang on to it, before you agree that the theft should be consigned to the dust bin of history and you stop whingeing and get over it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. It is not the repatriation and compensation for the stolen house that is the problem.

    It is that every generation of Maori gets to seek the compensation for the house even if the generation before has had full and final settlement.

    This will go on ad infinitum.

    if that is what you want, great. If not what do you want?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. Oh here we go again. Big Thug uses this as yet another opportunity to launch into one of his uninformed rants where he will refresh the page every five minutes and pounce upon any responder who dares to challenge his ignorant ideas.

    I am sure we have been down this path many times before with you Big Thug, trying to explain that racism is in fact the use of institutional power to disadvantage a minority group so that they have less access to rights and services that the dominant culture of that society have.

    And that it is entirely incorrect to label policies racist that try to redress the balance of that by giving those minorities a helping hand to bring them up to the same level of education, health and social advantage that members of the dominant culture take for granted, and redress historical injustices against them. But NO, you still insist on using the word racist to imply that Maori somehow have more advantage than Pakeha under those policies, even though statistical data proves otherwise.

    Referring to the Treaty reparations process “rubbish” is the truly racist attitude here. If you would make it your business to step out of your right-wing ignorance for a moment and read some of the historical facts about how the Maori were cheated of their land and rights by our colonial government you would understand that this is a completely justified and necessary process.

    You might try enlightening yourself a little and study up on the information available at this web site here, which entirely debunks any bigoted arguments you may be intending to foist upon us as this thread progresses:

    http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. jh Says: …but it is dumb of the Greens to want to validate the Maori version of the Treaty, in the interests of (naieve and missguided) justice.

    No jh, it is NOT dumb – because it is the just thing to do. It is the Maori version of the treaty that the Maori agreed to, not the mistranslated english version of it and that makes it the correct version, because we came here asking them to allow us to live in this country and those are the terms that they agreed to by their own understanding.

    To suggest otherwise is as “dumb” as it is to suggest that indigenous peoples where “dumb” enough to trade their lands for a few rifles and blankets. And that just ain’t so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. jh Says: …The Orewa speech was infamously successful because it just echoed what the public think.

    Wrong again jh. It did not echo what the public think, it merely served to pray upon the fears of those who are uninformed about the real history of this country, and inciting yet another round of Maori-bashing.

    I would hardly call that “successful”, unless you are measuring success in terms of a politicians ability to “divide and rule”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. Gerrit Says: …It is that every generation of Maori gets to seek the compensation for the house even if the generation before has had full and final settlement.

    Oh really? Please show me the evidence that previous generations of Maori have had “full and final settlement” and by who’s definition?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. ZAN, Been reading the web site you challenged me to seek.

    As a non english foreigner I dont have any relationship with Maori. In fact Moari see me as an unwelcome settler.

    Something I didn’t know so there I’ve learned a bit!

    Anyway I’m still going to call myself a New Zealand belonging to Ngati Tauiwi.

    The treaty says that Maori and the English Crown (not the NZ parliament?) have equal status. Should then the New Zealand parliament not have equal representation? Numerically? Who has the deciding vote under the treaty when the partnership is equal and an impasse occurs? Cant find that reference as yet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm

    ” The lawlessness of British subjects was reaching alarming proportions by this time with incidents occurring around the country. Among these were the the murders of a Maori chief and his family in the South Island.

    Was that Captain Stewart of the Brig Elizabeth????
    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/frontierofchaos-elizabeth

    It’s 2006 and we are dealing with the Chirstchurch Urban Design Plan. Apparently the population is going to double in the next forty years. We voted for containing growth but the developers have been lobbying behind the scene and are looking to overturn that… The developers solution will be driven by the lowest common denominator. They will piss over us all as they have money (“other peoples”… ) and we are “the little people who haven’t done anything”… Sir Bob Jones.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. I have an image of two beatles (brown and white) fighting in the dust. Along comes an ox and squashes them.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. This thread is a perfect illustration of where we are today.

    I’m not even going to pretend to understand a fraction of the Treaty issues, but looking at the big picture (ie a global perspective) NZ continues to rearrange deckchairs aboard the Titanic whilst the boat goes down. We look in, whilst forgetting to look out.

    Somehow, we have to make Treaty issues past tense. The Treaty is a hugely important part of our history, but the time is well past for wrongs to be righted (to the degree possible) and let New Zealand attempt to dig it’s way up the OECD ladder. Or we’ll all continue to sink together.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. Zan

    I think you might be mistaken about which one of us constantly refreshes the page.
    Anyway, I fully understand what racism is Zan, and I am against it, Gerrit hit the nail on the head when he/she mentioned that there is not end in sight should the greens get their way (thankfully that will never happen) and the Maori version is ratified.

    You mention that I might like to read about the treaty, well I can assure you I have, alas it might not be the books you would want (order) me to read but it is still history.

    I just cannot see how you can ever label a policy that gives special rights to one race of people as anything other than racist policy.

    I find it quite interesting that you are so aggressive about this, it is almost like you have no time at all for people who do not share you opinion, I just have not worked out why as yet, perhaps it is that you have recognised that this Labour government has adopted some parts of the Orewa speech and the chances of you attaining your goal are fast disappearing.

    …..and please…redressing the balance!….just how far do you take this guilt complex, as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water….

    And finally not every person you disagree with is bigoted, it is always easy to label somebody Zan, it is a lot harder to debate the issue, i suspect that you label people when you know in your hear that you are fighting a losing cause.

    I see race relations as one of the biggest problems facing NZ right now, the end of the treaty gravy train is good place to start on the long road back to harmony, racist legislation and left wing liberals making excuses for the over representation of Maori in all the wrong statistics is not helping the issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. Stop, breathe, read, reassess.

    If you have not done so, please get your hands on Robert Consedine’s Healing our History.

    I’m a “70s baby, early 80s child” who grew up a relatively sheltered white boy in conservative rural canterbury. I had no real understanding of treaty issues until I read this book a few years back. I believe that my ideas (prior to reading) were typical of those from my upbringing – which is to say typical of a substantial portion of kiwis. People who happened also to be the target audience for Orewa 1.

    Lets not lose the point of this post. Orewa 1 was intentionally devisive. It flew in the face of the understanding that had been developed through a vast amount of social (and economic) research and engagement on treaty issues.

    This is not a “now” issue. It has evolved over a significant period of time only through allowing Maori into processes of mutual understanding.

    Full and final settlement may well be expedient in terms of climbing an OECD ladder (db), but it is not a means of ensuring equitable access to public and private goods and services.

    This is not an economic argument. To lower it to one is simply another layer of (yes, zAN) “divide and rule”. Read the book. Please.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Zan said;
    “Oh really? Please show me the evidence that previous generations of Maori have had “full and final settlement? and by who’s definition?”

    Zan, my point exactly. Maori will never be happy. So we will have treaty settlements in my great great grandchildrens time.

    The word I have heard that will make Maori happpy is complete decolonisation. True?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. Read Robert Consedine’s Healing our History. Please. It’s an illustration of how wrought with difficulty the concept of “full and final…” is.

    The point of this post was to highlight that Orewa 1 was devisive. Orewa 1 showed no respect to the years of social (and economic) work and research done in NZ.

    Orewa 1 felled with one whack a long process of engagement on Treaty issues – a process that had until that point become able to genuinely recieve, absorb, and apply a range of informed perspectives. It had become more than simply affirmative action.

    Resolving Treaty issues is not a “now” event. It is a process of understanding and engagement. That it is incompatible with climbing the OECD ladder does not mean that it is any less important.

    To see Treaty issues as firstly an economic argument is simply misguided. To persist with the economic argument is arrogant, narrow minded, and evidence of a continued “divide and rule” mentality that continues in these lands.

    Read the book. As a white boy from a conservative rural background i found it very helpful.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm

    [HAVEN’T OTHER GROUPS APART FROM MAORI SUFFERED FROM RACISM?
    Yes, because New Zealand is essentially a monocultural society,
    other racial groups are the victims of racism and prejudice. Pacific peoples have in particular been scapegoated for our racial and economic problems more than any other settler group that has come to New Zealand.

    What about the Chinese?? [strange omission]]

    WHAT ABOUT LANDS THAT WERE UNOCCUPIED BY MAORI TRIBES?
    The instructions given to Hobson by the Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, recognised that Maori people held title to all land in New Zealand: .. Maori title to the soil and to the Sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government.

    We’ll settle for some of all of it now and some of all of it after that and some of all of it after that etc etc ["we" being people of varying ethnic mix -- As Don Brash rudely pointed out]

    I don’t think the Orewa speech was divisive I say again it touched a nerve. What seemed like a lot of money may not have been in reallity, but I think it was a response to a whole lot of things from “kill a white” to “only the dominant group can be racist”, and, Maori commit crime because they are a colonised people (therefore our fault), “we are at the bottom of the health statistics (it’s our fault they smoke) and especially the idea that the beaches which we believed were protected by the Queens chain would one by one be claimed by Maori, and all this at a time when the “world discovers New Zealand” and snaps up our “ridiculously cheap” coastal property and camp grounds etc dissapear.

    Your notion of justice is true to a degree but in the wider historical context not so much, I think.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. In International Law, where there are differences in meaning, “the document in the indigenous language takes precedence”.
    Thus “Te Tiriti O Waitangi” which was the document signed by all Iwi and Hapu involved, is “The Treaty”, not those copies in the Englisn language.

    I find it interesting that those on this blog who regularly advocate their “rights” to private ownership for themselves (and presumably their heirs) see Maori initiatives to sort out their historic and current rights and entitlements as “racist” … (and these “rights seekers” wish to impose “the will of the majority” to stop Maori from to this from happening!)

    Well I am not part of your greedy “majority”.
    I look forward to the day when my (hopefully bilingual and bicultural) Mokopuna will live in Aotearoa/NZ, this country of ours that is “egalitarian, fair to all, peaceful and ready for whatever lies ahead from Global Warming” (for example!)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. Big Thug Says: …blah-blah-blah-blah… gravy train

    Big Dictionary Says: Gravy train: a position in which a person or group receives excessive and unjustified money or advantages with little or no effort

    Please explain to me how a process which takes years and painstaking work to gather the screeds of evidence required to prove one’s Iwi or Hapu was wrongfully disenfranchised of it’s tribal property to the court… and then seek to be compensated for what was rightfully theirs in the first place is “excessive” or “unjustified”?

    The only thing excessive about that by my reasoning is the hoops that Maori are forced to jump through in order to present their rightful claims and the unjustified criticism of them for asking nothing less than that the injustices of our history be redressed.

    It seems to me that the foundation of your “gravy train” argument is based upon the mistaken idea that we are just giving “hand outs” to these people and it has nothing to do with legitimate process or fair compensation for real wrongs.

    Oh, and Gerrit you completely missed my point here and I do not appreciate you trying to associate what I said with such racist comments as “Maori will never be happy”. (ewwwwwwww)

    My point is that Maori have not reached a “full and final settlement? yet, so it’s not exactly fair to suggest that they will “just keep demanding more”.

    And as to the “word” you “have heard”…? Sounds like more talking points from the right-wing echo chamber to me.

    PS: Well said Eredwen and mikeymike (cheers for the link)!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. So de-colonisation is a true aim Zan?

    Funny that a left winger would defend Maori propeprty rights when in a true social republic (the aim of the left, no!) there would be no property rights (Maori or otherwise) except those owned by the State!

    At the time of the great socialist New Zealand revolution the treaty would become just another momento of history.

    While right wingers (of whom I’m not) would be on Maori’s side defending their property rights!

    Careful of what you wish for Zan.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. Zan

    You seem happy to abuse and slander others yet do not answer reasonable questions asked of you (very Winston Peters), I will try again.

    1 Do you support racist legislation, if so can you please tell me how this differs from Apartheid?

    2 Is the ultimate goal decolonisation?

    3 How many generations of NEW ZEALANDERS do you think should go one taking the blame for this?, as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement.

    4 If there is indeed an end to the treaty gravy train what excuse will you come up with then to justify racist policy and tax payer hand outs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. eredwen Says:
    December 12th, 2006 at 1:22 am
    In International Law, where there are differences in meaning, “the document in the indigenous language takes precedence?.
    Thus “Te Tiriti O Waitangi? which was the document signed by all Iwi and Hapu involved, is “The Treaty?, not those copies in the Englisn language.

    I find it interesting that those on this blog who regularly advocate their “rights? to private ownership for themselves (and presumably their heirs) see Maori initiatives to sort out their historic and current rights and entitlements as “racist? … (and these “rights seekers? wish to impose “the will of the majority? to stop Maori from to this from happening!)
    ———————————————–
    Eredwen, please elaborate on “historic and current rights and entitlements” under the Maori version of the Treaty.
    When you get down to the nuts and bolts it is by no means a minor issue. Only a romantic primitivist with their head in the sand would even contemplate it.
    Sometimes it is better to ‘let sleeping dogs lie.

    We are not likely to explore all the strands here but I believe that strong arguments can be made in favour of the status quo, as the lesser of two evils.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. “as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement”

    Wow, Big Bruv, I can’t let that one go. I’m not sure what you are thinking of there, but that’s absolutely not the case. The Treaty settlement process is NOT about making one settlement with all Maori – indeed that would be impossible. The kinds of injustices we are talking about occurred in different places at different times to different tribes, and the settlement process reflects this.

    There have already been several “full and final” settlements, but for individual iwi. For example, Ngai Tahu in the South Island received a package of settlement measures in the late 1990s to the value of $170 million for well-detailed Treaty grievances (known as the 9 Tall Tress as there were 9 basic claims). These were evaluated by the Waitangi Tribunal, accepted by the National Government of the time, and legislation was passed to put the settlement into effect. It included economic reparation, an apology, and the symbolic transfer of title of several historically significant land areas back to Ngai Tahu. This settlement is considered “full and final”, but only for Ngai Tahu, and only for those 9 claims. If, for example, another fraudulent land sale was to take place tomorrow, that could be a fresh breach which could be settled separately.

    This is the process that is taking place all over the country as the Crown negotiates with individual iwi to settle well-documented grievances. There will never be a “full and final” settlement with all Maori.

    Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum :(

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. Green policy goes far beyond redressing individual claims, it recognises Maori ownership of the whole of Aotearoa, including the foreshore and seas around Aotearoa (via the Maori version of the Treaty).
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. well said frog….

    and is that imperative part and parcel of green education policy..?

    if not..why not..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    btw frog..people like big bruv..talking in talkback mode…are a positive force imho..in that they force us to refine our/complex ideas into coherent form..such as the paragraphs above..

    (and if only to shut up the likes of big bruv..eh..?..)

    and therefor give the required ammunition to other more sympathetic readers of this forum..

    for them to use when they come up against this model of fervid/irrational rhetoric..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. Why not just scrap the Waitangi Tribunal altogether, repeal the nationalisation of the foreshore & seabed, & allow the Government to be sued in civil court?

    That way *any* New Zealander could seek damages from the Government for illegal behaviour, not just Maori – and they would all be subject to the same court, and the same standards of evidence.

    As it stands, the Waitangi Tribunal is a racist body, in that only those of Maori descent can bring claims to it, although the Treaty applies to all New Zealanders.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Duncan,

    Wrong the treaty only applies to Maori and the English Crown (not British?)

    if you are not Maori or English the treaty does not apply because we are here at the behest of the English Crown and not Maori who consider us Tauiwi. (illegal settlers)

    Interesting takes you find on that web site Van said we must study.

    Treaty also says that there would be an equal partneship between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives? You should do because that is what the treaty says.

    How does that fit into an Westminster system of democracy?

    Maybe the upper house while the Tauiwi form a lower house?

    Phil,

    Totally agree these types of dicussions are healthy because it makes people think and form opinions.

    Perhaps you could in your prose, paint a picture of how you see New Zealand in 30 years time? Where will the Tauiwi fit?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. Gerrit,

    The Treaty states that Maori will “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty … extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.”

    The idea is clearly that Maori get to keep title to land & resources which are theirs at the time of the signing, for as long as they want it – and in exchange, they cede sovereignty to the Crown and become British subjects.

    I’d be curious to know how you get “partnership” from “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation.”

    With respect to the Treaty applying to all New Zealanders, the purpose was to ensure that Maori – as British subjects – received equal rights. There is no provision within the treaty for the creation of racist organisations like the Tribunal, which are for the use of those of a particular race alone.

    If the Treaty did promise Maori different treatment on the basis of their race, that would be ample justification for the abolition of the Treaty as an example of apartheid, for the same reason that the Foreshore & Seabed nationalisation should be repealed.

    Racism is morally wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. Duncan, no. Here are the Key Principles of the Green Party’s Treaty of Waitangi policy:

    1. The Green Party affirms that Te Tiriti o Waitangi remains a living and fundamental constitutional document.

    2. The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:

    a)gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
    b)confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
    c)gave Mäori the individual rights of British people, and
    d)confirmed their religious, spiritual and customary rights.

    3. The Green Party acknowledges that the Crown and its representatives have breached, and continue to breach, te Tiriti. We support the resolution of, and restitution for, all outstanding historical and contemporary breaches.

    4. The Green Party believes there is a need for an ongoing dialogue grounded in Te Tiriti, both to give effect to the relationship that it enshrines, and to build a high level of awareness among all citizens of the unique role of Te Tiriti in our nation.

    The whole policy can be read here.

    Incidentally, just wanted to point out that it’s a common mistake to assume the foreshore and seabed issue is a Treaty issue. It’s not. Maori claims to native title of the foreshore and seabed do not stem from an alleged treaty breach, but from international law which recognises native title.

    The controversial Court of Appeal decision which kicked off the foreshore and seabed debate did not grant that title to anyone, it simply found that the Maori Land Court had the jurisdiciton to consider foreshore and seabed land the same way it considers other land in determining whether native title existed or not (not, most often). The subsequent legislation removed this ability.

    The claim that was taken to the Waitangi Tribunal about the foreshore and seabed was not over whether foreshore and seabed land was native title, but about the process the government followed after that Court of Appeal decision.

    So, in determining what our approach to Treaty settlements should be, it’s best to leave the foreshore and seabed out, and consider that as a separate issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. 1 Do you support racist legislation, if so can you please tell me how this differs from Apartheid?

    Racist legislation? Difficult to know quite what you mean. Some examples would help.

    But Apartheid: The decolonisation process would logically end up with a system that looked similar, but not identical, to the South African Government’s propaganda about apartheid. (I remember it well, I was a collector of it for a school project in the 70s).

    There were two things wrong with apartheid that are not wrong with decolonisation. 1) 4/5ths of the population got access to only a small fraction of the resources while 1/5 got the lions share, and the best. 2) The group an individual (or a community) belonged to was decided by the state.

    With the decolonisation process (I have been listening for years to Moana Jackson) there are two systems (as in apartheid) but there is no pre condition on who gets the best or the most, and belonging is a matter of choice for individuals or communities.

    I concede it is hard for a p?keh? to be accepted as a m?ori, but many m?ori (as in they could whakapapa if they wanted to) live as p?keh?, and I do not think any of us have a difficulty with that.

    That is the difference.

    2 Is the ultimate goal decolonisation?

    Yes. But decolonisation is not “kick out the whiteys”. It is “allow m?ori society to develop”, and allow m?ori society and institutions the same status as p?keh? institutions.

    3 How many generations of NEW ZEALANDERS do you think should go one taking the blame for this?, as far as I am aware there has already been one FULL AND FINAL settlement.

    It is not about blame. Very few m?ori commentators talk of “blame”, it is p?keh? commentators that talk of “blame”.

    4 If there is indeed an end to the treaty gravy train what excuse will you come up with then to justify racist policy and tax payer hand outs?

    Recasting your question without the pejorative language: If the treaty issues are ever all settled will the taxpayer still fund m?ori initiatives?

    Well, yes. Just as the taxpayer now funds p?keh? initiatives. The symphony orchestra, Te Papa, Parliament (this website eh frog?)…

    I hope this helps

    [i]W[/i]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. Duncan,

    Have a read f the web site that Van has listed way up in comments. Cant seem to be able to cut and paste the link into this comment.

    Expalins it all about partnerships. You can get interesting conclusions from this web site.

    Notice the issue of Tauiwi is still not addressed by the Green party?

    Bliss,
    I can exept the concept of apartheit as you propse,just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. Gerrit,

    I had a brief flick through the site Van linked, & will come back to it when I’ve got the time to read it through.

    I must say though that their explanation of why separate development isn’t apartheid to be eerily reminiscent of the attempts to defend the status of black Americans during the Civil Rights movement as “separate but equal.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. frog said: “Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum.”

    I totally agree! Having read the contributions of some on this blog, I begin to think that the level of misinformation (disinformation?) in our society is much higher than expected, and serious or becoming so.

    When Don Brash gave his Orewa Speech I thought (asumed) that most Kiwis would see through his rhetoric / “politics of envy” etc … but obviously not. It now seems that the speech he gave was carefully targeted … and his words are being repeated more or less verbatim here!

    A plea to our young(?) “right wing” contributors here: Please check your facts and learn a bit of history before continuing with your campaign of “racism” etc. To Greens (and to well informed Kiwis in general) you come across as at least ignorant, if not malicious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. eredwen,

    Rightiousness knows no bounds. As a non right wing blogger but interested in how the treaty settlements and the treaty will fare in the future find this dicussion interesting.

    Problem I have is everytime one ask as question there are no answers only rightiousness from the “well informed kiwi’s” (aka Greens) and in return being called a right wing racist.

    Such as

    1. the issue of Tauiwi is still not addressed by the Green party
    2. I can except the concept of apartheit as you propose, just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Should read

    Questions such as

    1. the issue of Tauiwi is not addressed by the Green party
    2. I can except the concept of apartheit as you propose, just dont know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?

    PS

    Thanks to Van for pointing us uninformed into the direction of this web site

    http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/back/project.htm

    Questions are based on statements made on this web site so maybe the informed are nor as informed as they thought they were!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Gerrit, I am not sure what you are getting at with the Tauiwi issue. The Green Party welcomes visitors or tauiwi from all cultures as you can see from the Human Rights Policy:

    “The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa/ New Zealand where we are:

    – A model of tolerance, democracy and inclusiveness.

    – A good international citizen that accepts international responsibilities to welcome all new migrants, treat them well, and help them settle into our society.

    – All enjoying a standard of living that enables everyone to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community.”

    The Treaty of Waitangi is between Maori and the Crown, so the Treaty Settlement process rightly takes place only between those groups. It is true that the Treaty was the instrument that provided the basis for British migration to New Zealand and thus for New Zealand society to have the shape it does today, which is why it is so important that we all understand its unique role in New Zealand. But in terms of the official Treaty relationship there are only two parties.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. This topic only highlights the growing problem of race relations and intolerance in New Zealand.

    The tone of this tread is noticeably more aggressive than any other, most of those who support what Metiria has to say do not show a lot of empathy with those who disagree with them, as Gerrit says the standard retort of “right wing racist” is becoming boring.

    I am not one who would dismiss the injustices of the past but i am one who thinks that the past is well and truly behind us, the intolerance of those who support the continuation of the gravy train is somewhat worrying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Qoutr from the afore mentioned web site

    “For the Crown to presume the right to make further immigration acts without consulting the tangata whenua was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It has been the Crown, rather than a joint agreement between the Crown and Maori, that has decided who will come to New Zealand, from what countries they will come and under what conditions they will be given status here”

    Judging by that statement it was only one party to the treaty that gave Tauiwi like me a “permit’ to live in New Zealand.

    To the other treaty partner I dont have a right to be here.

    My question to the green party (and as a potential green voter) is

    1. do you support me being in New Zealand
    2. does Maori support me being in New Zealand

    How does the treaty effect me when my status in New Zealand is uncertain? Even though I’m a New Zealand national by naturalisation it may long term not prove to be the paper it is printed on.

    Another question that remains unanswered;

    The treaty says that there would be an equal partnership between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives?

    How does that fit into an Westminster system of democracy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. BB, theres no point in shutting off the past if it has not been dealt with. “Hand in your guns, all will be forgiven.”
    Dealing with the past requires an understanding of the stories of both Maori, settlers, and all of their descendants.
    As I said above, it can not be approached from an economic perspective. Doing so belittles the issue and gives them in a eurocentric context – no way to gain understanding.
    Again, I thoroughly recommend the Consedine book.
    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. Frog:

    If the egg yoke is what pakeha bought legitamitely.
    Where in the Maori version does the egg white (un inhabitted areas, beaches, seas) become outside the domain of tino rangitiratanga?
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. Bliss,
    I can accept the concept of apartheid as you propose,just don’t know how it would sit in a democratic Westminster system of representation. Could you explain?

    It cannot. The “Westminster” system tolerates only one sovereign that is the ultimate owner and arbitrator. That is, in the medium term, incompatible with decolonisation.

    But the “Westminster” system is not the only way to run a democracy. Moving to MMP was a step away (in a good direction IMO).

    Helpful?

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. Thanks Bliss.

    Guess that begs the qustion then if the majority dont want de-colonisation it may not happen? Under MMP de-colonisation would appear even more unlikely?

    Your interpretation on how New Zealand society would look after de-colonisation? Especially representation for the equal treaty partners or will at the end of de-colonisation the treaty be torn up?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. Of course decolonisation may not happen. But I think asking questions about what the “majority want” is very dangerous. Moreover, counter intuitively, it is undemocratic.

    Democracy is not “Majority Rules”. That is a dictatorship of the majority. The way I see it, a democratic society is one in which all who are effected by decisions have meaningful input into the decisions being made.

    In our system elections are a very crude and rough democratic tool. The select committee system is less crude and more effective.

    As for decolonisation: I cannot envisage colonised up to Tuesday, and decolonised from Wednesday. It will be a long process, and where it will end I cannot predict.

    It happens by more and more m\u0101ori communities and organisations getting control over more and more of there lives.

    Eg: Kura Kaupapa are a part of that process

    And why would the treaty ever be torn up? Was the Magna Carta ever torn up? In 500 years the treaty will probably be in a siillar state.

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. Mikey

    I appreciate what you are saying but for the current generation to expect me to believe that all their woes are down to a historical grievance really does stretch my tolerance levels to breaking point.

    While we contiue to hold out the carrot of massive tax payer funded handouts nothing will change.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. Basically Bliss, if the English Crown was to be no longer relevant in New Zealand then the treaty is also irrelevant. Torn up sounds destructive and is not what I meant, maybe after decolonisation it will no longer be relevant and hence not required.

    The issue of Tauiwi in regard recognition by Maori needs to be clarified. Maybe up to 60% of the population is Tauiwi. Be interesting what the verdict from Maori will be as rationally you cant send them home (being maybe up to 4th generation settlers).

    Will the Tauiwi people have a voice after de-colonisation? Will they be Aotearoa’ans?

    I envisage a new tribe Ngati Tauiwi who will claim rights of citizen ship and representation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. Article the second:

    In the English text of the Treaty, M?ori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed “exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties”.

    In the M?ori text of the Treaty, M?ori were guaranteed “te tino rangatiratanga” – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands “wenua”, villages “kainga”, and all their property/treasures “taonga katoa”.

    Frog:
    Explain my egg metaphor.
    Thanks
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Geez – I wander in from work and here it is again, the fruits of ambiguity, splattered all over the landscape. :-0

    The first problem is that the treaty itself divides us into Maori and non-Maori, it isn’t amiguous about THAT, it is very definite. There are umpteen Maori entities represented and the Crown is represented and they all signed as equals. To honour the treaty means that Maori have a much larger say in what happens in this country than they would by simply counting votes. This result can be called racist and has been called racist several times in the past 8 hours. Why?

    Because ANY law that implements the treaty will have to discriminate between Maori and non-Maori. Any Constitution based on the treaty has to do the same. I see NO escape from that.

    The only proposition I have considered seriously as a solution is a constitutional dual parliament… and no law stands without the assent of both Prime Ministers, with the constitution so formed being accepted as superceding the treaty. At least then we could have “one law for all” for almost everything and still meet our obligations…. the electoral laws would be a mite peculiar.

    I’d reckon this could suit the Libertarians here well, as such a government would have a hell of a time making ANY new laws. :-)

    That’s my $0.02 – worth exactly nothing after rounding :-)

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. To Gerrit and BB: “Decolonisation is a process that assists indigenous people to identify as members of a racial group that has been systematically oppressed by a dominant culture; it enables them to take action towards social transformation. Facilitating an understanding of oppressive processes and affirming the legitimacy of a people’s ancestral culture encourages cultural renewal” (Dudgeon & Williams, 2000).

    I personally do not feel threatened by that in any way, and I cannot imagine why anybody else would, unless they subscribe to the sorely mistaken belief that decolonisation means we non-Maori are all going to have our land confiscated and be shipped back to the UK. However, if you choose to live in the fear of ignorance regarding that myth, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.

    To Frog, who says: “Sometimes I think that if this basic material was compulsorily taught in all schools, the level of debate about these issues would be considerably higher. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the Treaty at all in the new draft curriculum”. Your comment really hits the nail on the head for me and is the source of much of my personal outrage around this issue.

    During the 80’s I was involved with facilitating “Project Waitangi: Pakeha Debate The Treaty Workshops”. When the real history of Maori was presented to me I was outraged that we were never taught this stuff at school – only a sanitised version NZ history which parallels Howard Zinn’s description of the way that american history is taught in US schools, where the atrocities of the colonial white race are completely whitewashed.

    One of our two-day Project Waitangi workshops would barely even touch the surface of all the things we were not taught in NZ school history classes, and the more one learns the more righteously pissed they should be at the way Maori have been treated here over time and be motivated to support the efforts of Maori today. Which is why I chose to actively support the Project. I couldn’t not support it!

    I thought it was a very good thing when they started to make Treaty Workshops compulsory in tertiary institutes here, even though they were pretty brief and diluted compared to the Project Waitangi ones. But then the shit hit the fan and all the screeching racists protested about this as being “political correctness run wild” and the government is accused of “social engineering”.

    People, we seriously need to get off the “politically correct” bandwagon and start concerning ourselves more with being “historically correct”, because I regard this lack of proper education as being the core issue that we are faced with today and root of BB’s so-called “problem of race relations and intolerance”.

    And for your information BB…. the problem is not a “growing” one. The problem has existed for decades and the only thing new is that more people are talking about it now, but sadly most of this talk is reactionary and founded in bigotry and ignorance.

    Frog, I would dearly like to see some concrete policies from the Greens which make this stuff compulsory in our school history classes. Is there anything in the pipeline?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. Thanks Eredwen. As a teacher, you might be interested in this recent article by Mitzi Nairn, who founded Project Waitangi. There are also some resource links at the bottom of the page for those who may feel motivated to organise your own local Treaty Awareness workshops:

    http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/in291006.htm

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. zANavAShi,

    Having studied the web site you recommended and picked a particular area of concern in my comments (that of Tauiwi) I find that neither the frog nor you can answer my concerns. To repeat.

    “For the Crown to presume the right to make further immigration acts without consulting the tangata whenua was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. It has been the Crown, rather than a joint agreement between the Crown and Maori, that has decided who will come to New Zealand, from what countries they will come and under what conditions they will be given status here?

    Judging by that statement it was only one party (the English Crown) to the treaty that gave Tauiwi like me a “permit’ to live in New Zealand.

    To the other treaty partner I dont have a right to be here.

    My question to the green party (and as a potential green voter) is

    1. do you support me being in New Zealand
    2. does Maori support me being in New Zealand

    How does the treaty effect me when my status in New Zealand is uncertain? Even though I’m a New Zealand national by naturalisation it may long term not prove to be the paper it is printed on.

    Another question that remains unanswered;

    The treaty says that there would be an equal partnership between Maori and The English Crown. Do the Greens envisage a New Zealand parliament made up 50/50 Maori and English Crown representatives?

    Holding treaty workshops I’m sure would raise questions like these.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. BJ,

    Under the treaty you would only have one parliament. An equal split one between Maori and representaives of the English Crown.

    Meaning that if your birth is Scottish, Cook Islander, Australian, Italian, American or in my case Dutch you will have no representation in the parliament.

    Only Maori and those of English Immegrant stock may sit in it because they signed the treaty.

    With over 60% of the people in New Zealand not represented would we still be a democracy?

    It is with sadness that I note being called ignorant yet again when the very people for whom the workshops (and the school programmes the “well informed”) are meant to enlighten, cannot answer a simple question from the ignorant.

    Maybe the teachers need to be better taught to know what is in the treaty and the ramifications thereoff.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. (and the school programmes the “well informed?)

    Should read – (and the school programmes the “well informed’ will have taught)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. You people who dream you can solve the problem by teaching the treaty, are just PREACHERS.

    A better system would be an FAQ – including Q’s from those opposed/skeptical. All policy makers should be hammered on the hard questions

    As with any party policy statement, the greens position is just a sales brochure, only to be driven here, here and here, don’t take it over here! etc . One I thing I learnt about buying a car is: Don’t let the salesman guide you over the car; poke and prod for yourself. The CULTURAL FUNDAMENTALIST element in the green party cannot answer the hard questions period.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. Gerrit

    My answer was to supplant the treaty with a constitution that recognized and made equal, the balance between Maori and Pakeha control, and which did not exclude the more recent migrants from other lands. The importance of this is clear when the entire preceding thread is scanned.

    The Treaty is divisive.. even as it binds us together it tears us asunder. It was designed well, to cast the problem forward in time when (it is hoped) the divisions can be managed less violently. Maybe that time is come, I don’t know for sure. I don’t know of any country that has had dual parliaments, but you’d note that I didn’t envision more than a dual, in spite of the number of signatory Maori tribes. I don’t know for sure that the construct would work at all, though I expect that it could.

    The point is that both Maori and Pakeha still want what is best for New Zealand. Consider that any bill would have to pass muster in BOTH communities. I would expect that from this there would be more “cooperative” memes developing and less division overall…

    Now it’s cost all of you the time to read the damned thing. I’ll have to start paying you at this rate :-)

    Another $0.02

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. BJ,

    Almost heresy to say “surplant the treaty” but I agree that is where the problem lies.

    How then to make the treaty effective for

    1. Maori (people of the land)
    2. Pakeha (english immigrants)
    3. Tauiwi (all other immigrants)

    that is fair?

    Seeing that the treaty when written could not have envisaged (or the English Crown would not have allowed it) immigration by other people.

    The Green party policy states

    “The Green Party envisions an Aotearoa/ New Zealand where we are:

    – A model of tolerance, democracy and inclusiveness.

    – A good international citizen that accepts international responsibilities to welcome all new migrants, treat them well, and help them settle into our society.

    – All enjoying a standard of living that enables everyone to feel a sense of participation in and belonging to the community.?

    Because the treaty excludes Tauiwi we dont have a feeling of inclusion, participation or belonging to the community.

    Would the Green party care to address that concern?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. bjchip Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 9:13 am

    It was designed well, to cast the problem forward in time when (it is hoped) the divisions can be managed less violently.
    ==============================

    Was it well designed? What about the ambguity(?) in the wording “kawangatanga katoa” etc. How can it have been well designed when the situation was such that one side had no idea what was around the corner (ie mass immigration). It was formed with good intentions, but the people who gave the instructions weren’t the ones who were going to turn the soil.

    One explanation given in David Slacks Book Bullshit Backlash and Bleading hearts is that both sides gambled. Maori gambled that demographics would stay pretty much the same and the British gambled that Maori would be assimilated .

    One has to be realistic about what will work or forget it. Two parliments why??? >>> Because it is in the treaty? no, because radicals want it. You don’t build a house on a crooked foundation.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Gerrit deserves some sort of answer and I will try to give it.

    How then to make the treaty effective for

    1. Maori (people of the land)
    2. Pakeha (english immigrants)
    3. Tauiwi (all other immigrants)

    that is fair?

    Not fair, but IMO not accurate.

    The treaty was between the crown and M?ori. The crown legitimately got kawanatanga.

    Immigrants have come here at the behest of the crown so are, legitimately (as legitimately as anyone else) here. As non- m?ori.

    The division is m?ori and non-m?ori, not the three Gerrit makes.

    I, too, am non-m?ori and I belong no less than any m?ori. My sense of belonging is deepened by deep roots (all my grand parents were born here, the first before 1838) but I acknowledge that I have not made a choice, like an immigrant has, so in a way, my commitment is shallower.

    Does that help?

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. While we are here at the bequest of the crown, the crown (English Crown we must remember) did not consult Maori on non english immigration and because they did not we are not here by right under the treaty.

    That is how I see it.

    Be interesting how the teachers of the treaty see this however.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  60. Gerrit

    If you want to feal that you have no right to be here, do not blame the Green Party!

    The Green Party is not making you feel unwelcome, you are doing it to your self!

    My advice is to Get Over It! :-)

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. Get Over it!!

    Isn’t that what some commentators are saying to Maori!!

    The Crown colonised you — Get Over It!!

    “We won, you lose, eat that”

    Jeez Wayne.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. bliss Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 10:59 am
    The treaty was between the crown and M?ori. The crown legitimately got kawanatanga.

    But where do you live bliss?, does the chief have tino ragitiratanga?

    Metira Turie stated on National Radio that “the Green Party has clearly stated that Pakeha xan stay in New Zealand as long as they abide by the Treaty”

    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  63. From the “Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee” 1993

    explains the difference between Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga

    “The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi clearly confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori (Article 2). It granted to the Crown, kawanatanga, a word which is a transliteration of the word governorship (Article 1). Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga and, on the basis of its being guaranteed in the Treaty, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their tino rangatiratanga. What they gave to the Crown was limited power, to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology (Article 3) of the Treaty did not make Maori into British subjects. It recognised the continuing right of Maori to enjoy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British citizens enjoyed their own. This was reinforced in (Article 4)(unwritten) which stated that the Governor would protect Maori ritenga or custom.
    However, the English text of the Treaty which successive governments have relied on to this day for their legitimacy, or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty, assumes that Maori gave away all their sovereign power to the Crown. Such an idea would never have been acceptable to Maori. 200,000 Maori had no need whatever to concede any power to just 2,000 settlers. They signed the Maori text because they knew what it meant. Their tino rangatiratanga was retained.
    On the incorrect assumption that Maori ceded sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga), successive governments have set about usurping tino rangatiratanga. The denial of the right of tino rangatiratanga since 1840 has been expressed in legislation, decisions of the Courts, and most recently in attempts to rewrite the Treaty in the form of principles.”

    Kawanatanga only applies to English Settlers, not Maori who have Rangatiratanga.

    Where do the Tauiwi sit?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  64. Gerrit, I think Bliss was being mischievously ironic and I hope you will remember your reaction to that the next time you see this attitude being directed toward Maori.

    I also want to say to you (and to others here) is that you have no reason to fear. But if you can’t not fear, then at least don’t allow your fears to be constructing straw men over this issue.

    When I first learned all this stuff 2 decades ago my initial reaction was to be filled with fear also, but I have since learned that the honouring the Treaty does not threaten any of us and in fact will have many benefits for all, especially for those of the Green persuasion.

    It’s not that I am trying to be rude or evasive by not replying to all your points and questions Gerrit, it’s just that this is not the place for such a complex discussion, and I personally do not want to become entangled in it too deeply here for that reason, nor am I the best qualified person to answer many of these things for you.

    And to echo what was said above, it is not the Greens responsibility to answer all your questions about the Treaty either, although it is fair enough for you to ask them to allay your fears as regards to Green policy on the security of your citizenship here. Although I think your fears would better be allayed by more thorough study (suggestions below).

    But this was not meant to be a thread about debating the Treaty, it was a thread about the long term backlash from Brash’s racist politics and we have strayed from the topic a bit here so I will stop hijacking this thread any further after this reply to you.

    I encourage you to follow the resource links in the 2nd article I posted above and find yourself a workshop to attend, or even better yet arrange your own with a group of concerned friends. I also encourage you to read the book recommended by Mike.

    There comes a point where we must take responsibility for our own learning and there are plenty of other reputable resources out there on these issues if you commit yourself to that learning pathway.

    All I can do is offer some places to start upon your journey as you boldly go where few Tauiwi have gone before (fade out to theme from Star Trek…….)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  65. Gerrit wrote….

    Kawanatanga only applies to English Settlers, not Maori who have Rangatiratanga.

    Where do the Tauiwi sit?

    Bliss replys…
    With the English Settlers. Duh!

    Why make it so hard? Why struggle for alienation?!

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  66. A good place to finish, Thanks Zan,

    The links you mentioned are not attached – can you resend.

    Cheers, been very enlightening.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  67. Bliss you have missed the point completely. Read the comments.

    Tauiwi cannot sit with the English Crown!!

    That is why there is a seperate word for the non english immigrants.

    Duh!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  68. Here you go Gerrit, but you might need to copy and paste this directly into your browser:

    http://trc.org.nz/

    Quote: “We provide free Treaty courses when community groups or members of the public organise 16 or more people who want to attend a 12-hour introductory workshop.”

    Some excellent resource links from that site also.

    Good luck :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  69. Thank you Bliss

    I do think that Gerrit is intentionally making it harder than it is sometimes.

    JH, consider at the time, the alternative to a treaty was genocidal warfare and that getting a treaty signed by umpteen tribes and the crown required a LOT of ambiguity, I think the guy who wrote it did well. I am sure he didn’t intend for it to last the way it has, but it recognizes umpteen + 1 governments as equal.

    One has to be realistic about what will work or forget it. Two parliments why??? >>> Because it is in the treaty? no, because radicals want it. You don’t build a house on a crooked foundation.

    There’s no particular difficulty with having two deliberative bodies agreeing on laws. In the US there’s the House and the Senate, in Britain they have the House of Lords… what part of this is really THAT hard? As to why, it has to solve the same problem the treaty pushed into the future. It has to provide for equitable sharing of the lands collectively known as New Zealand (or Aotearoa) between the “native” inhabitants and their descendants who originally signed the treaty as Maori and the rest of us who are more recently arrived under the rule of the Crown. That’s WHY, and radicalism has nothing to do with it. Nor is the concept of two deliberative bodies agreeing on a law a “crooked” foundation.

    The constitutional change has to be AGREED to by Maori. Not voted into place by a Pakeha majority. They are equal parties to the original agreement and must be regarded as equals now.

    Not superiors… equals. We share.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  70. I have got to let this go. But I am upset that Gerrit seems so determined to be left out.

    The fact that there is a word “tauiwi” that (is said to) mean “non english immigrant” only matters if you let it. There are a lot of labels people put on each other for many different reasons.

    Hippy. Stoner. Nigger. Punk. Honky. Wasp. Pom.

    But just because a label is placed on you, does not mean it should stick! That is a choice that you must make yourself.

    It seems to me, as I quipped before, the Gerrit is desperate for alienation. That is sad. I for one make him/her welcome, and s/he is welcome to sit at my side in the treaty partnership, to stretch the metaphor. But it is an invitation I cannot make her/him accept.

    I just hope that Gerrit does not blame, in any way, m?ori or the Green Party for his/her feelings of not belonging.

    It is up to Gerrit to choose this country as her/his home. And if Gerrit makes that decision, IMO, Gerrit belongs.

    W

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. bjchip Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 2:19 pm

    JH, consider at the time, the alternative to a treaty was genocidal warfare and that getting a treaty signed by umpteen tribes and the crown required a LOT of ambiguity, I think the guy who wrote it did well. I am sure he didn’t intend for it to last the way it has, but it recognizes umpteen + 1 governments as equal.
    =====================
    I don’t think the alternative was genocidal warefare, infact Maori would have been better off without the treaty, I think.
    In NZ’s case you have to remember that Maori had a limited access to food, there being no native mammals, and the only crop that was much use was kumara (a subtropical) plant. This limited the size of the Maori population and so NZ had large unoccupied areas (especially in the South Island).
    =======================
    There’s no particular difficulty with having two deliberative bodies agreeing on laws. In the US there’s the House and the Senate, in Britain they have the House of Lords… what part of this is really THAT hard?

    ===========
    Except that those bodies are formed from the same population. What you propose would be different (ie two different ethnic groups). It could end up being nothing more than a tug of war. On the other hand things can pan out in unexpected ways; some societies function because people know that if they missbehave (act in a dissorderly fashion) they will all suffer.

    I can’t imagine what constitutional changes Maori would agree to: under the treaty Maori retain tino rangitratanga but concede kawangatanga katoa. Some claim kawangatanga was a rather impotent word others that it is a strong word, however at the time of the signing of the treaty there were 60 to 70,000 to 200,000 (according to the author of Gerrits article), so it is unlikely they would have conceded anything to their dissadvantage so quickly.

    Assume therefore that tino rangitratanga equals what we commonly consider as power, control over a tribal territory which would include the seas around as far as the members of a tribe could reasonably keep out intruders. In the meantime we come and buy land, be it a farm in Fairlie or a pokey summerhill stone flat in Aranui. This belongs to us but it is in some tribes territory, [although in fact the colonists quickly out numbered Maori and gained the upper hand so that the closest thing we see to Tino Rangitiratanga is a Maori MP]. [This is how I understand the Maori version of the treaty it means that we only own our flat in Aranui and the tribe owns evrything else].

    What might Maori want? How might we heal the injustices of the past? There is the treaty settlement process, where native inhabitants were ripped off, but there is also the issue of the foreshore and seabed. The bumper sticker. “Foreshore and Seabed Maori Foreshore” might give us an idea, as could the occupation of the Brighton Pier, not to mention the people on the hikoi on ‘Holmes’ who were filmed saying to the public: “we’re your new landlords”.

    The unofficial policy of the New Zealand Government is to ignore the treaty in so far as tino rangitiratanga goes (and therefore native ownership of the foreshore and seabed). As historical injustices go that doesn’t rate very highly, I think since the alternative is equal access rights for all New Zealanders.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  72. JH

    “Genocidal warfare” doesn’t specify who gets killed. The treaty got both parties out of destructive warfare mode and if you don’t think that was a brilliant accomplishment for the time I am not optimistic that we’re going to make sense of each other’s posting.

    As for two houses with different makeups, what does that have to do with it? I am perplexed by this objection as there is no substance to argue. Maori cannot work out how to govern themselves? That’s hardly the case. Maori cannot work out how to make agreements with others? Maori cannot make compromises? The only uncompromising position I have seen is the one that says, one-law-for-all…. ours. That’s how the grievances became so deep-rooted in the first place.

    Your next paragraphs put the pieces in place. You listen to the most militant Maori and that is the view you present as “what Maori want” . What the treaty meant for the past however long its been, its existence makes it clear that Maori and Pakeha are to SHARE here and concepts of property are not quite so ironclad.

    Anathema indeed to the “ownership” society.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  73. This thread just goes from bad to worse, it is no wonder that Maori are not succeeding as they should.
    There are literally hundreds of people prepared to make excuses for them.

    We are often told that these “grievances” are the reason Maori cannot “move on”, it seems that the cure for all ills is money (vast sums of it)

    As yet NOBODY has managed to tell me or explain (in anything other than PC babble) to me how these “grievances” can possibly be the reason that Maori do not achieve at the level they should, Maori have exactly the same opportunities (they actually have more) as every other person in our society

    One day New Zealand might be a place where all men are treated equal, this will not happen until the left realise that generations of welfare dependents and endless treaty claims are not going to help us achieve this.

    JH states that the governments unofficial policy is to ignore the treaty, the sooner this becomes official government policy the better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  74. big bruv

    My wise old father had a saying:
    “There is no point in farting against thunder”.

    Other Greens may not use those same words, but that is what several have decided about the attitudes of some of the participants on this thread.

    You say “As yet NOBODY has managed to tell me or explain …” and you are right!

    When one comes into a discussion with misinfromation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misionformation, lack of information and prejudices.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  75. bjchip Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
    “Genocidal warfare? doesn’t specify who gets killed. The treaty got both parties out of destructive warfare mode and if you don’t think that was a brilliant accomplishment for the time I am not optimistic that we’re going to make sense of each other’s posting.
    ===================

    I was musing that if there was no treaty it may have been better for Maori as for a while there was a system they relied on but it let them down. IE they may have been less complacent at that crucial early stage.
    ========================
    BJ
    As for two houses with different makeups, what does that have to do with it? I am perplexed by this objection as there is no substance to argue. Maori cannot work out how to govern themselves? That’s hardly the case.
    ======================

    The problem is that we would be making decisions about the same scarce resources or, we share the same fish bowl. It is interesting that you can’t see the problem. I thought about it and I realised you probably see Maori as neutral whereas I see them as the opposition. That comes from years of listening to the radio and watching telly as activists spit sparks. I watched the attitude of even my most liberal friends change over time.
    ==================
    BJ
    What the treaty meant for the past however long its been, its existence makes it clear that Maori and Pakeha are to SHARE here and concepts of property are not quite so ironclad.
    ===================
    That’s where we differ again, I don’t see the treaty as benign. The Maori version gives us the right to buy land from the Crown who buy it from Maori , It makes Maori British Citizens, but It leaves tribes in posession of everything else via tino rangitiratanga. The Crown can browse over a shoulder or two but that is all. We can only share if it is ok with Maori who are the Tangata Whenua and Kaitiaki (guardians).
    The problem with sharing power is THE FORMULA: Maori are Tagata Whenua, descended from Rangi and Papa, they are litterally born of the land, whereas we are outsiders. They are also due to their bloodlines with the land, and experience, Kaitiaki and have duties to the environment over and above us. You may think this is just playing but the cultural police take it seriously. The difference between me and the cultural police is that I’m a realist and they are romantic primitive leftists (and probably Trotksy- Lenninists with a bit of white leghorn –getting a bit tired) so they don’t see a problem with that (in fact it turns them on a bit).

    “We” as a group “stole” Maori land but individually all “we” may own is the summerhill flat in Aranui. Under the Maori version of the Treaty Maori are entitled to free and undisturbed possession of the beaches etc so the person in the summerhill flat in Aranui may have to ask permission to go sit on the beach (assuming he doesn’t get beat up at the bus stop).
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  76. jh – you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of what the treaty is and does. Do read Claudia Orange – she’s very good and you’ll feel much better equipped once you have a solid grounding.

    The “maori version of the treaty gives us the right to buy land from the crown…” is false. The treaty establishes the relationship between the crown and Maori, and establishes the crown as legitimate in NZ. It certainly has nothing to say about the ability of settlers/citizens to buy land from the crown.

    Say that “‘We’ as a group “stole” Maori land” is incorrect. The Crown stole Maori land. And yes a citizen you can own a quarter acre. I’m failing to see this as an issue, or even why these two points are linked.

    As for Maori owning beaches – they don’t. They can’t – Labour ensured that the beaches were nationalised. And even if they hadn’t, what Maori and the Greens wanted to preserve was the ability of Hapu groups to go to court to prove undisturbed and continued use/possession (ahi ka roa) for 150+ years. Crown law thought it unlikely if more than a couple of families in the country could prove this.

    Do you feel exploited? Don Brash called the audience of Orewa “punters” and said they lived “out there in Punterland”. He set out to make you feel uncomfortable and scared with his bogey men of powerful and rich Maori controlling NZ. All so you’d vote him in to privatise the hospitals and primary schools.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  77. I was musing that if there was no treaty it may have been better for Maori as for a while there was a system they relied on but it let them down.

    Yes, the treaty was intended to benefit BOTH side to the conflict…

    I don’t quite understand yet, what part of “killing each other” you think might have been better than the shaky peace that ensued… your viewpoint takes a peculiar slant here, that the treaty was for the Maori, when it really had to be for both sides to be able to stop killing each other.

    Again we are making decisions about those same scarce resources now. Then we go to court with some number of tribes to determine what their rights are… and you like this better than my idea which (did you notice or not?) creates a unified Maori government entity and removes the source of the lawsuits about current resource decisions. Older grievances still would have to be resolved, but no new ones would be possible.

    I will let others here argue about what the treaty says and doesn’t say, as I have observed only that its existence does create a division that splits our society at a fundamental level. As CITIZENS we cannot regard each other as equals, and that sort of division is not healthy in the long term. I suggested a means of bringing things into balance, removing the problem to the highest level of government where it can be managed, and creating the ideal of “one law for all”.

    I keep hearing “it can’t be done”. Why not?

    If Maori concepts of “duties to the environment over and above us” disturb you and the concept of sharing disturbs you as much as it seems to, then perhaps you really don’t belong here. I may not be seeing what you see because I don’t LOOK for the worst. There is plenty in the Maori culture that I can respect and admire, where you seem to only see that someone who might beat you up at the bus stop.

    The beating at the bus stop has nothing to do with Maori non-Maori… it has to do with poverty. People get beaten up at bus stops in Brooklyn and there’s not a Maori within 100 miles. Blacks beat up Blacks, Whites beat up Whites… the race issue is not as important as the poverty and inequality issue.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  78. Bliss,

    Alienation is not the right word. Confused is not right either but closer. Hence the search.

    Confused because we have “rights” to access to country but physical barriers are put in the way.

    Such as reported access to public land in the Ureweras being blocked by Maori.

    Personnally had access to beaches blocked by Maori at Raglan (Go past the world famous surfing spot and into the next bay. Further access to the bay is denied by a big corrugated iron gate and barbed wire to the low water mark. Local tribe claiming it is their refridgerator – the bay that is).

    While to a long term settler like you this is understandable, as a new one I find this repressive and apartheit like in nature. Being denied access to what I was taught was my “right” to walk the bay.

    Maybe not to take the shell or sea food without asking – that I would not do if there was a sign to say ask first.

    The way shell and seafood is being stripped from all beaches giving local Maori the custodial rights to the food and to share this on a sustainable level with the rest of the population may not be a bad thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  79. Eredwen

    Did you dad say anything about farting into the thunder of political correctness?

    I have tried to debate this issue with other forum members but at the end of the day it is a waste of time as most have no idea of reality or at least they are not prepared to admit the facts.

    At least I can take solace from the fact that their views will never make it into law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  80. BB,

    You cannot debate with a teacher. They know everything, are convinced you know nothing and worse that your opinion is worth diddly squat.

    Reverting to

    “When one comes into a discussion with misinfromation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misionformation, lack of information and prejudices”.

    Personally have got a lot out of this discussion.

    Am much wiser and now know the correct word I was looking for about the treaty, “perplexed’ would sum it up for many recent immigrants.

    Still Bliss, Van and others have directed me to good information plus google finds facts and opinions very quickly.

    The eredwen of this world are nothing but trolls. You know the ones we get accused of being! Contribute nothing but demean any query.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  81. Enough of this Gerrit!!!

    I have done my sincere best to be civil to you in this discussion and respond with empathy to your concerns, but my patience for you just ran out when stepped over the line with your comments to Eredwen.

    The Wikipedia definition of Troll: “In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

    Frogblog is an established community of people who come here to discuss issues of Green politics, and in the 18 months I have been hanging out here those discussions have mostly consisted of thoughtful open-minded debate where participants are able to disagree respectively with each other and advance their collective understanding of the issues.

    Eredwen is a respected long-standing member of this community who I have observed to possess a unique depth of wisdom on a wide range of issues, contributing constructively to discussions and also possessing a great deal of tolerance to people who are less politically aware than herself.

    Whereas yourself, JH and Big Bruv are established members of KiwiBlog who actively enjoy the agreement of other extreme right-wing members over there and made the deliberate choice to enter THIS established community in order to promote those right-wing agendas.

    I don’t see Eredwen making a deliberate choice to make her way over to KiwiBlog to try and force her left-wing agendas on to you there in your own established community. So by the above definition it is YOU THREE who are the trolls here and NOT her.

    There is only one motivation for people such as yourself to chose to enter an established community of people whom you already KNOW do not share your own political leanings – and that is for the purpose of being disruptive.

    My patience for your coordinated freep attack has run out. All you three have done here recently is to try and transform this green liberal community into a “Carnival of the Right-wing Trolls”.

    This is our established home and we have enjoyed it as such. So please just sod off back to Kiwiblog where everybody already agrees with you and leave us in peace!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  82. Have perhaps made about 3 or 4 comments on Kiwiblog so you are wrong.

    If in your opinion eredwen little speech to BB was not a rightious holier then thou, know all put down, fine thats for you to decide.

    I think otherwise.

    Do you think eredwen’s comments were civil to BB?

    If the green party wants to get more votes to instigate the policies it sees need implementing, it needs to address the questions being asked by voters. And yes robust question demand robust answers.

    Eredwen’s answers were not informative, constructive or helpful.

    Just put downs. Pretty sad for a woman of her standing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  83. Gerrit

    I have to say that the only one who will debate an issue (and I note that Zan conveniently over looks the fact that I have changed my opinion on a few things in my time here) is BJ.

    I am not offended nor upset by the put downs or name calling from people like Zan as it just shows the shallowness of their argument.

    I have a genuine interest in some Green party policy but it seems that unless you embrace the total green package you are not welcome.

    What Zan fails to understand is that unless the Greens can convince the public (well the 94% who do not vote for them) that they are not people to be scared of then they will continue to have almost no influence on policy and legislation.

    Zan’s desire to stamp out all those who do not share his/her vision is rather extreme but sadly common among those from the hard left.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  84. taranaki Says:
    December 14th, 2006 at 2:11 am

    jh – you’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of what the treaty is and does. Do read Claudia Orange – she’s very good and you’ll feel much better equipped once you have a solid grounding.

    =============
    Actually I feel that the treaty has become like a relgious belief; I have heard it said that it doesn’t meet the criteria for a good and binding contract [not those words]. I have read Michael Kings History of NZ and David Slacks Book which I quoted above (and I listen to Radio NZ, watch current affairs and read between the lines).
    ===============
    taranaki Says:
    The treaty establishes the relationship between the crown and Maori, and establishes the crown as legitimate in NZ.
    ===================
    I can’t see how the Maori version does that
    My concern about the Maori version is tino ragitiratanga
    versus kawangatanga. One chief said that (he understood) the shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, but the substance remains with us. I keep coming to the conclusion that we are only entitled to what we have bought and the tribes own everything else.

    As you say labour nationalised the beaches so Maori can’t own them, and as a political reality it was never going to happen anyway. However if you maintain the moral high ground by insisting that the Maori Version is the correct one it leaves us with a situation where there is a giant hole to fill in [I believe that it leaves us with the egg analogy. The yolk represents what we own, but the rest belongs to individual iwi. Then there are responsibilities re taonga (includes culture and language)]. Some people will keep saying we should do this and that under the treaty (and therefore earn our right to be here). The reality is that people won’t adopt Maori culture unless they want to, and if it is forced on them they will rebel. I work with people who speak about 7 different langauges and the one I would most want to learn is Mandarin (there are elderly Chinese who stroll around my nieghbourhood looking at the gardens.

    BJ
    ignore the rhetoric in my last post. While disscussing things in a written format has advantages, you can’t cut in,, “what do you mean??”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  85. zANavAShi:

    Thank you for the support and kind words (which were greatly appreciated!) and for your your insight.

    A quick analysis of contributions to this thread follows:

    Gerret 24 posts, jh 16 posts, big bruv 8 posts, duncan bayne 4 posts
    THUS: these 4 people 52 posts (average: 13 per person)

    zANavAShi 11 posts, bliss 6 posts, bjchip 5 posts, eredwen 4 posts,
    frog 3 posts, mikeymike 3 posts, phi-u 1 post, sam buchanan 1 post,
    dbuckley 1 post, taranaki 1 post
    THUS: these 10 regulars (a predictably smaller group than usual) 36 posts
    (average: 3.6 per person)

    I could analyse the content/tone/ etc of the posts to expand on the above numbers, but I think it is self evident to anyone who reads through the thread.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  86. I think more could be achieved by analysisng the topic into seperate subthreads eg

    Does the Treaty of Waitangi give soverienty to the Crown via kawangatanga or does it remain with The Chief by tino rangitrataga?

    If the treaty upholds tino rangitiratanga does this mean in fact that under the treaty we have no rights to anything other than the urban properties or farms we own?

    Does the Green Party believe we should ratify the Treaty fully or partially.

    are Pakeha who want to keep the security of Crown ownership of wilderness and coastal areas greedy?

    What did Pakeha (?) steal from Maori and how should we make recompense. (sam Buchanan)

    Examination of some of the theories behind positive discrimination. Colonisation and influence on crime, educational achievemnet etc

    When will it (compensation) end? Gerrit

    Healing our history. Dig it up or put it behind us. Move back or move forward?? . [ My review of this book is that it is well intentioned (very syrupy) but its prescription will lead us down the path to Bosnia-- I must admit I have'nt read it yet]

    etc
    etc
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. Gerrit, If I have been too hard on you then I apologise for that. However I believe Eredwens comments to BB were entirely justified and I echo them.

    The reason I have always enjoyed coming here is that the level of discussion on issues I am passionate about has always been respectful, thoughtful, educational and solution-focused.

    I welcome the opportunity to examine different sides of the debate without being flamed for my ideas and I find here a wealth of information which I would not otherwise have had the opportunity to find access to. I am highly invested in seeing constructive healthy debate that broadens everybodys understanding.

    And being that I feel a deep sense of urgency with many of these current issues, I quite righteously object to seeing that debate stifled by the use of fallacious, divisive arguments and petty partisanship which only serve to waste the precious time and energies which are needed right now to be constructively focussed upon forward action.

    It does NOT serve the spirit of healthy debate when people employ slimey tactics that have become the trademark of sewer-dwelling right-wing forums, parroting negative buzzwords loaded with bias and bigotry and hurling marxist analogies ad infinitum. Neither does it assist the spirit of that debate to nitparse your opponents opinions in order to wear them down or to sweep the entire content of them aside by applying labels to invalidate their entire argument.

    The majority of BB’s input on this blog uses these styles of tactics and you will find many of them listed here on SourceWatch as being “Propaganda Techniques”:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda_techniques

    I have no interest in engaging in sincere debate with people who’s agenda is to deluge me with propaganda, because as Eredwen quite accurately observes “When one comes into a discussion with misinformation, lack of information, and prejudices, one tends to leave it with the same misinformation, lack of information and prejudices.”

    That is one of the truest things I have ever read on an online discussion forum. Another of my favourite truisms, and one of my core philosophies of life, is this:

    “If you’re not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem”

    If you’re here to be part of the solution, then welcome.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  88. Zan

    That is about the funniest thing I have read all year, that only worrying part about it is that I honestly think you mean it.

    When it comes to name calling you take the cake, the fact that you do not (will not) see this in yourself is bloody hilarious.

    If you ever really want to chat about propaganda technique then I am always available, I would love to hear you explain why the Greens in particular insist on scare monger tactics to get their point across, if you doubt this then tell me who said this….”petrol WILL BE $2.00 a liter by Xmas”

    I have always been very wary of extremists be they from the left or the right, extremists will always dismiss opposing views as propaganda, all that shows is a closed mind on the issue.

    You write about your passion for various causes as if this was a thing that make you unique, well you are not alone in this, we all have issues that we are passionate about Zan, mine are Animal welfare, the elimination of race based policy and privilege and the total overhaul of the social welfare system.

    The difference here is that while I do not agree with your passion I respect them, what a pity you cannot do the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  89. Van

    Thanks. When you come here from a place where white crosses mark execution spots one can see JH point about not getting into a Bosnian style conflict of ethnic cleansing.

    Hence dialog which at times gets heated, misunderstood, etc. But at least we have dialog not guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  90. Love the passion guys – but sadly I can’t imagine you lot ever negotiating a treaty that would avoid violent conflict.

    Personally I really like the Good ‘ol Westminster system – which we don’t actually have here in Godzone by the way.

    Two houses with the landed gentry Lording it over the Commoners – that’s the way to go. Wonder who the landed gentry would have been back at the time the Treaty was signed?

    Who’d be asking for handouts then eh?

    I’d love some o’ that gravy on my kumara.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  91. Guys and Gals… this is meaningless now. I have no real idea who started it or why and it doesn’t matter.

    I suggest that ALL of us need consider the nature of the medium before we post.

    This is an unforgiving medium. Once you post you can’t easily retract, and one of its advantages over conversation is that you DO have a chance to reconsider before you hit “submit comment”. You cannot recall a syllable of what you say but if you erase a post before you send it, nobody is the wiser… except you.

    I am sure that I have zapped my share of folks on this blog, and some in this thread, some intentionally, some unwittingly. I don’t however, regard flames as useful. Sometimes they are entertaining, but usually they are counterproductive, a lot like this thread. I erase roughly one message unsent for every three I post.

    What is your ratio? You don’t have to tell me, but consider it.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  92. kiwinuke Says:
    December 15th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    Wonder who the landed gentry would have been back at the time the Treaty was signed?

    Who’d be asking for handouts then eh?

    We don’t know that but we have one example of what would Maori have done if they were the colonisers:

    http://sof.wellington.net.nz/origins.htm

    In the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individual iwi considered carrying their martial culture beyond the shores of New Zealand. At least three expeditions of conquest were planned: to Samoa, to Norfolk Island, and to the Chatham Islands, which did not become part of New Zealand until 1842. All these proposed expeditions were dependent on finding transport to those places: and that meant finding a European ship’s captain whose vessel was available for charter; or it meant Maori commandeering a vessel for the purpose.

    In the event there were no expeditions to Norfolk Island or to Samoa because the necessary transport was not secured. But there was an invasion of the Chathams Islands. Two Taranaki tribes then based in Wellington, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga ki Poneke, hijacked a European vessel in 1835 and had themselves—a total of 900 people—delivered to Chatham Islands. There they takahi’d or walked the land to claim it; ritually killed around 300 Chatham Moriori out of a total of around 1600, and enslaved the survivors—separating husbands from wives, parents from children, forbidding them to speak their own language or practise their own customs, and forcing them to violate the tapus of their culture, whose mana was based on the rejection of violence.

    Was this a superior form of colonisation to that imposed by European on Maori? Did it respect the dignity and customs of the colonised? Did it acknowledge the mana whenua of the tchakat henu or indigenous people of the Chathams? It did not. It was what might now be called an exercise in ethnic cleansing. When Bishop Selwyn arrived in the islands in 1848, it was to discover that the Maori called Moriori “Paraiwhara” or “Blackfellas”; and it was to report that the Moriori population continued to decline at a suicidal rate as a consequence of kongenge or despair. Moriori slaves were not released and New Zealand law was not established on the islands until 1862, twenty years after they had become part of New Zealand. And it is that twenty years of neglect of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown that is the basis for the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  93. jh:

    An interesting point, but here is a bit of essential context to add to it …

    I highly recommend this book:

    [Ranginui Walker (1994,2000) Pengiun "Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou Struggle without End" pp 39-43 "The Moriori Myth"]

    “Underlying the myth of the fleet is the two-strata theory for the settlement of New Zealand … tinged with overtones of Eurpopean supremicist notions grounded in Darwinian social evolutionist theory …

    “The discovery of the Chatam Islands by Captain Broughton in 1791 had devistating consequences for the Moriori. European diseases such as measles and influenza reduced the population by a fifth. The extermination of the seals by European hunters cut off the basic food supply of the Moriori causing a further decline in numbers. Then in 1835, Taranaki tribes displaced by the musket wars of the previous decade invaded the Chatam Islands in search of land for themselves. The Moriori population at the time was estimated at 1,663; the invaders killed a futher 226 Moriori. The cumulative impact of these events demoralised the Moriori.” …

    … “The myth of the Moriori is essentially ideological in the sense of being a false consciousness as a solution in the mind to conflict generated by the coloniser’s expropriation of Maori land. According to the myth, the Maori, as a superior and more warlike people, expropriated the land from the Moriori. Therefore Pakeha expropriation of the same land on the basis of their superior civilization was in accordance with the principle of the survival of the fittest. For that reason the false myth of the Moriori has been one of New Zealand’s most enduring myths. Pakeha need the myth for the endorsement of colonisation and Pakeha dominance.”

    The chapter is well worth reading in full!

    In addition, I have ‘insider’ knowledge about “the Chatams” from longterm neighbours (close family friends) who come from the Chatams. Currently in our street there are three families of Chatam Island ancestry … They are a mixture of Chatam Iwi, Ngai Tahu and Irish/English ancestry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  94. On this thread I have been unable to understand the arguments (and apparent fears) of the visiting “nay sayers” here.

    Ngai Tahu (“Kai Tahu” in the South) are the only Iwi in Aotearoa/NZ to have settled their major claims through the Waitangi Tribunal. The South Island is the better for them having done so because of the investments they have made. (Tourism is just one area in which their investment has made a positive difference.)

    The whole website is worth a look but the page link below is about the actual settlement.

    http://www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz/About%20Ngai%20Tahu/The%20Settlement/Claim%20History%20Overview

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  95. I see several subtle points of difference in Michael Kings and Ranganui Walkers versions.

    Michael King: individual iwi considered carrying their martial culture beyond the shores of New Zealand. At least three expeditions of conquest were planned:
    Ranganui Walker: Then in 1835, Taranaki tribes displaced by the musket wars of the previous decade invaded the Chatam Islands in search of land for themselves. [there are discrepencies of historical fact implied here as to the state of the populations at the time they decided to invade]
    The extermination of the seals by European hunters cut off the basic food supply of the Moriori causing a further decline in numbers. [what about potatoes?]

    Michael King: here they takahi’d or walked the land to claim it; ritually killed around 300 Chatham Moriori out of a total of around 1600, and enslaved the survivors—separating husbands from wives, parents from children, forbidding them to speak their own language or practise their own customs, and forcing them to violate the tapus of their culture, whose mana was based on the rejection of violence.
    Ranganui Walker:The Moriori population at the time was estimated at 1,663; the invaders killed a futher 226 Moriori.

    Michael King: The point in raising the Chathams experience is not to use it as a stick with which to beat Maori—especially in view of what I have been saying about not visiting the sins of the fathers, or mothers, onto subsequent generations. I draw attention to it in the spirit of a historian who says, Take care. The evidence of history is unanimous on only one point. It shows us that no race or culture is inherently superior or inferior to another; and we all have skeletons in our ancestral closets that represent instances of behaviour of which we cannot be wholly proud by today’s standards of ethics and morality.

    Ranganui Walker: The myth of the Moriori is essentially ideological in the sense of being a false consciousness as a solution in the mind to conflict generated by the coloniser’s expropriation of Maori land. According to the myth, the Maori, as a superior and more warlike people, expropriated the land from the Moriori. Therefore Pakeha expropriation of the same land on the basis of their superior civilization was in accordance with the principle of the survival of the fittest.

    Ranganui Walker lines up the dominoes so that the Pakeha dominoe fell and set up the chain reaction. You could also arrange the dominoes further back and say that our populations had at an earlier stage suffered great losses from those diseases, then there were the clearances, resulting from the agricultural revolution, and the consequent move to the horrible conditions in the overcrowded cities etc, forcing us to seek a better life.

    What lesson can we learn from these two different versions?
    Historians aren’t necessarily neutral, and we should treat what we read with a pinch of salt. If historians are neutral, probably other figures of authority such as teachers and beaurocrats aren’t necessarilly neutral either…Scary isn’t it!.

    One way of looking at the participants in the race debate would be to compare their goals with the principles of modern psychotherapy.
    In Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for instance the aim is to refute the negative idea, so instead of repeating and deeping the terrible idea the object is to act like a lawyer for the defence and for this to become a habitual response.. I think that is food for thought
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  96. eredwen Says:
    December 16th, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    On this thread I have been unable to understand the arguments (and apparent fears) of the visiting “nay sayers? here.

    Ngai Tahu (?Kai Tahu? in the South) are the only Iwi in Aotearoa/NZ to have settled their major claims through the Waitangi Tribunal.
    =============

    Personally I don’t have a problem except that (without going into the arguments) claims could go on and on)

    There is a whole lot more to be worried about than that however for instance:”Maori world view” is ideology/ religion (it isn’t “point of view” either). Then there is the idea of using the treaty as a basis for a constitution and kawangatanga versus tino rangitiratanga, the latter is downplayed (IMHO) by Maori who don’t want to frighten us with the implications as to the foreshore and seabed. I also have a problem with taonga, re the treaty. In the big scheme of things cultures come together and go into a big melting pot, we pick out the bits we want and discard the bits we don’t. I have no problem if people of Scottish descent want to learn gaelic and join the Scottish society etc. I think it is right that the Maori languge is protected. However as a practical matter, language is primarily a tool for comunication. When I’m in the library, I look up and I have to do a double take as the signs are in Maori and English.
    Another aspect of the Maori nationalist movement that disturbs me is that they say “we can’t live in your culture”. Well, we have problems with it too. It is a product of the industrial age; the division of labour, the factory system and all of that sort of thing. I believe “Values” is a response to all that.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  97. jh writes:

    “What lesson can we learn from these two different versions?
    Historians aren’t necessarily neutral, and we should treat what we read with a pinch of salt.”

    No. I believe that we should read /listen to their different points of view/versions and learn from the similarities and the differences.

    ” If historians aren’t neutral, probably other figures of authority such as teachers and beaurocrats aren’t necessarilly neutral either…Scary isn’t it!.”

    You see lack of “neutrality” (whatever that means). I see different points of view and thus different versions of events. This is very understandable (and useful). People see things from different perspectives. The events in question happened a long time ago… and what was reported were summaries of what was experienced/remembered differently by different people. All are part of the “big picture”.

    “One way of looking at the participants in the race debate …”

    I don’t believe that this is a “race” debate. Surely this is (or should be) an inheritance/entitlement debate. The people in question are descendants of the original owners … In Ngai Tahu (for example) some of these descendants are blond haired and blue eyed.

    Finally, I don’t find “it” scary. Human behaviour is boringly consistent throughout the World and over the centuries !

    My main question is what are YOU personally disturbed about (or even afraid of)?

    What I would be “afraid of” is the long term consequences for future generations if a seemingly greedy “majority” managed to interfere with the Tiriti Settlements process for the descendants of the Tangata Whenua.

    I assume you are Pakeha. As such, it is important to realise that demographically (on current trends) Aotearoa/NZ will have a majority of citizens who are of Polynesian (Maori and Pacific Island) descent in the future. Now is a good time to get used to that idea! (That is unless we are
    “overun by SE Asians” as the effects of global warming bite.)

    I have read and written enough on this topic so please don’t expect me to read or write another long reply.

    As my young-adult kids would say “GET USED TO IT!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  98. jh: One further thought …

    You could always migrate to Australia. There they know how to keep their indigenous people “in their place”! (Sick joke)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  99. eredwen Says:
    December 16th, 2006 at 11:31 pm

    jh: One further thought …

    You could always migrate to Australia. There they know how to keep their indigenous people “in their place?! (Sick joke)
    ===============
    If the Green Party’s aim is to achieve social justice, non-violence and practice appropriate decision making it had better start practising impartiallity. The atitudes of policy makers guaged by labels such as “Cook the Conguerer” and the inability to allow any balance by a slanted interpretation of history will make voters run the other way.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  100. eredwen Says:
    December 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pm

    jh: Are we to understand that you are here to teach us impartiality?
    ==============================
    We’ll at least I can acknowledge faults on both sides. The impartiallity I’m talking about is the inability of some of you to ascribe any negative behaviour to Maori , for example the colonisation of the Chathams by Maori was out of character, and largely the fault of our colonisation. If it was so benign why did the director of Te Papa ban it it from the Moriori exhibit because “a revelation of the truth [in this matter] would constitute a return to a view of history which has overtones of racism.”

    and:
    ? The lawlessness of British subjects was reaching alarming proportions by this time with incidents occurring around the country. Among these were the the murders of a Maori chief and his family in the South Island.”

    Ofcourse that was TeRauparaha transported to Akaroa by Captain Stewart for 70 tonnes of flax.

    I think this analysis of cultural Marxism fits the bill:
    Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
    both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender.[sorry but it does fit the bill]
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  101. jh:
    To answer my question, a simple “yes” or “no” would have done.
    (Apparently that’s a “yes” !)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. Ay caramba JH!!!

    How did you manage to redirect this thread about Brash’s impact on the racial policy in NZ into a debate about “Cultural Marxism”?

    Please do yourself a favour and go read some Howard Zinn books.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  103. Right..

    the inability of some of you to ascribe any negative behaviour to Maori

    …and just which of us was that?

    Is the Director of TePapa posting here?

    Ofcourse that was TeRauparaha transported to Akaroa by Captain Stewart for 70 tonnes of flax.

    “The resultant torture of the chief and slaughter of the local people led the then Governor Darling of New South Wales to put Stewart on trial as an accomplice to murder. ”

    I guess it was, but what IS your point JH? We don’t yet have a clear statement from you about what WE are saying and doing… except that it is “cultural marxism” to insist that a treaty be honoured rather than abrogated unilaterally by the strongest.

    You have been studying under President Bush too long. It is his favorite form of argument to create a “them” who say things that can be conveniently stuck into a particular hole and then verbally shat upon… even though nobody has said those things or supports those views.

    We have seen where this form of argument takes people, we don’t care to go there. If you wish to argue here you should argue with US, not with someone you’ve invented.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  104. Wow. Just returned from a weekend away from the blog to see how this thread has developed. Usually I’d be pleased at this many comments as it would indicate a meaningful debate taking place. But not this time unfortunately. Perhaps it’s wisest for everyone just to let it be at this stage?

    Though in the interests of factual accuracy and ongoing learning about the Treaty settlement process I feel bound to point out that Ngai Tahu isn’t the only iwi to have reached a final settlement through the Tribunal and Office of Treaty Settlements process. There have been heaps. Ngai Tahu and Tainui share the honour of having the biggest settlements in terms of monetary value ($170 million) but lots more iwi have settled as well. Ngati Mutunga is the most recent example; their deed of settlement was passed in Parliament about a month ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  105. frog:

    Thanks for the correction on the number of Tiriti Settlements!

    We-of-the-South can be very insular at times.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  106. jh Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
    Metira Turie stated on National Radio that “the Green Party has clearly stated that Pakeha xan stay in New Zealand as long as they abide by the Treaty?

    A new one to me. I have never said this, and would like see the reference to this please. If it was supposedly national radio, it can be readily verified.

    Remember that the Orewa speech was constructed specifically to target latent misinformation and ignorance held by some people. It had practical implications, such as cutting funding to a community group set up to protect women and children from domestic violence. There was no reason to think that they believed it. Rather they did it to push buttons that might lead to votes.

    If we want to maintain a healthy democratic society, we cannot have politicans who will do this simply to gain power. That is the point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. Metiria

    Your post does exactly what you accuse Dr Brash of doing, NOWHERE does the Orewa speech state that Dr Brash was going to cut funding for domestic violence groups, your comment is nothing but latent misinformation and an attempt to grab the moral high ground.

    Your comment “they did it to push buttons that might lead to votes” is also spurious, Dr Brash echoed the very real concerns of many New Zealanders, these concerns have a right to be aired in a “healthy democracy”.

    Where we do agree is the desire to have a healthy democracy, this will not happen as long as we have race based policy and apartheid seats in the house.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  108. Big Bruv- you are distorting what Metiria actually said. She said Brash’s speech had practical implications, such as the cutting of funding to domestic violence groups, not that Brash advocated, in his Orewa speech, cutting funding to domestic violence groups. What Brash did advocate was cutting funding that was “race-based”.

    Trevor Mallard then went on race-based funding hunt. Manaaki tauira scholarships, supplementary grants for the retention of M?ori and Pacific students in tertiary education, the promotion of early childhood education participation for M?ori and Pacific children, and domestic violence programmes to protect M?ori women and their children from violent abusers, were all identified as race-based funding and duly cut.

    So Brash blew the dog whistle, and Mallard played the part of the obedient puppy. Labour, to its eternal shame, put redneck votes ahead of its commitment to positive programmes to address some of the social and economic inequities that M?ori and Pasifika face.

    But Brash, with his Orewa speech, created the political climate that allowed Labour to get away with this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  109. jh – you don’t do your cause any good by using terms such as “Polictical Correctness” and “Economic Marxism” – these terms are coined, usually by those who have little rigour to their arguments, to appeal to prejudice.

    And your argument has little rigour. It is not that certain groups (workers, peasants, feminist women, blacks, Hispanics, homesexuals) are labelled “good”, and others (capital owners, bourgeoisie, white males) are labelled “evil”.

    Rather, it is an issue of power – the groups you refer to as being labelled “evil” are groups with considerable economic, political and cultural power. The groups you refer to as being labelled “good” are those with very little economic, political and cultural power.

    The Green Charter Principle of Social Justice recognises that unlimited material growth is impossible, and that the key to social responsibility is therefore the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.

    Enabling resources to be distributed more justly requires addressing the imbalance of power between these various groups by removing some of the economic, political and cultural power of the powerful groups, and empowering those with little power.

    Brash’s Orewa speeches were designed to do exactly the opposite – to strengthen the power of his wealthy (and primarily white and male) cronies by the election of a Brash-led neo-conservative Government that would do thier bidding. This would have been at the expense of some of the most powerless groups in our society (M?ori, sole parents, unemployed), who were attacked by Brash as being in some way “privileged” by the existence of programmes that were designed to redress (to a very limited extent) their economic, political and cultural powerlessness.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  110. Toad

    You can do better than label those who want one rule for all and an end to race based funding as redneck.

    It is a popular tactic of some here but not one I would have expected from you, to quote your good self “these terms are coined, usually by those who have little rigour to their arguments, to appeal to prejudice”

    Why do we have Maori domestic violence groups anyway? what is wrong with domestic violence groups for all races, it is things like this that annoy so many Kiwi’s and the reason so many want an end to raced based funding….the woman being abused are the issue..not the colour of her skin or her race.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  111. I think it is a simple statement of fact Gerrit. Go count the numbers for yourself and try to prove otherwise, since you seem to have nothing better to do than pull that one emotive little quote out of Toads’ very astute commentary.

    big bruv Says: Why do we have Maori domestic violence groups anyway? what is wrong with domestic violence groups for all races, it is things like this that annoy so many Kiwi’s and the reason so many want an end to raced based funding….the woman being abused are the issue..not the colour of her skin or her race.

    As a someone who was a volunteer for Woman’s Refuge for many years I can tell you that you are 100% WRONG.

    There is reliable research to support that different cultures in fact DO have different needs with regards to support for domestic violence and various other social services and the people with those needs DESERVE to have the choice to seek support from their own particular group and get the same quality of service as everyone else.

    Just as I deserve the right to choose a female doctor because I am a woman, or seek counselling from a practitioner of my own particular spiritual/religious persuasion, or my own particular cultural group when I am in need of social services. Being that I am a member of the dominant culture here, the services I favour are better funded by the system than others, giving me more right of personal choice than a person of most minority groups.

    It is only fair that more funding should be allocated to groups other than my own when required so that those minority groups have the same basic choices as I do as a middle-class white woman. This is not “race based funding” this is “NEEDS BASED FUNDING” and to suggest otherwise is quite frankly racist on your part.

    This “One Rule For All” Brashism that you persist in parroting at every opportunity is little more than a warcry for cultural hegemony. All the instances I have seen you employ it – from Maori-bashing to beneficiary-bashing – have been to protest the concept that funding should be apportioned relative to need. And your justifications for your belief system reek of ethnocentricity.

    Ethnocentricity is the belief that one’s own race or ethnic group is the most important and/or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behaviour, customs, and religion.

    In this context “One Rule For All” translates as “We are the dominant culture and you will abide by our norms because we are ethnically superior”. Sounds like a case of white supremacy to me. I guess I could insert a fascist catch-cry here, but that would add as much value to the argument as your tiresome Komrade Klarke comments do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  112. BB: “Why do we have Maori domestic violence groups anyway? what is wrong with domestic violence groups for all races, it is things like this that annoy so many Kiwi’s and the reason so many want an end to raced based funding….the woman being abused are the issue..not the colour of her skin or her race.”

    we have Maori domestic violence groups and Maori education and Maori healthcare because those programs are more effective than “all races” programs. Maori are more likely to participate and more likely to be changed by their experience if it is within a group of their peers.

    To argue in favour of “one size fits all” programs is to waste money on ineffective programs, which I’m sure you don’t want, you want goverment funding to be effective and not a waste of money?

    I would also support social work, health, education programs for different age groups, genders or lifestyle groups. Maori programs are no different. What’s wrong with Maori programs, Chinese programs, Somalian programs, etc. etc. so long as each can be audited as effective, what’s the problem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  113. ZAN,

    A bad way to make my point I admit. While we claim that brashes speech was defisive, so is the toads comments that we have white, male, rich on one side as powerful while brown, female? and poor on the other as unpowerful.

    A gross generalisation and typically stereotyping. That was the point I was trying to make. Not on Toads comment overall which were expressed very well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  114. Stuey

    One size does fit all, as I said before the issue is domestic violence not the race of the people involved, to suggest that Maori “need” special funding for their own groups is plainly ridiculous.
    It may well be that the vast majority of the ladies who need these groups are Maori, but to suggest that a European, Chinese or African lady cannot attend because she is not Maori is racist.

    Continuously making excuses or finding reasons why Maori need to be treated differently really does the cause of Maori no good at all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  115. metiria Says:
    December 18th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    jh Says:
    December 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
    Metira Turie stated on National Radio that “the Green Party has clearly stated that Pakeha xan stay in New Zealand as long as they abide by the Treaty?

    A new one to me. I have never said this, and would like see the reference to this please. If it was supposedly national radio, it can be readily verified.
    =====================================

    Not those words, but that is the message I remember (ie it meant the same). Maybe a year ago?

    You must know what you would have said re the status of Pakeha, the Treaty, and the right of non- Maori to be here
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  116. BB,

    As I take it from Don’s speech the notion of “privilege” suggests that one group is benefiting at another’s expense.

    Stuey makes tye point above that targeted campaigns (based on race, gender or age) may well be a more effective delivery mechanism for state funded programs.

    Would you still have a problem with this kind of targeted delivery if effective programs were available to all?

    i.e. is it the suggestion of privilege and bias that you are reacting to or the notion that different campaigns can work more effectively for different groups in society?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  117. JH:

    Great to see you squirming on the end of Meiria’s hook!

    Your reply: “Not those words, but that is the message I remember (ie it meant the same). Maybe a year ago?”

    How come your “definite” tone and the words in quote marks then?

    Keep it up, and keep us all amused!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  118. Big Thug it is totally offensive that YOU – a white male who has made many sexist statements on this blog such as that a woman deserved to be called a f***ing c**t and derogatory comments to female members here about women’s right to state their opinion – think you have any right to have an opinion about how ANY women needs to be supported in a situation of domestic violence!

    FYI Womans Refuge has had a separate Maori Woman’s Collective in place for longer than I can remember and it has always been standard policy that Maori women who come to the refuge are cared for by other Maori women. The long-standing history of this practice is PROOF of the fact that there is a specific need for Maori to be supported by their own.

    I could give you three pages of reasons why this is not only culturally respectful and appropriate, but it also infinitely more effective than Maori being supported by non-Maori. But this would be a complete waste of time because you are not capable of hearing any facts that disagree with your own white supremacist bigotry.

    One size does NOT fit all and you have proven that you do not have the first goddam clue about the needs of women, let alone the needs of women of different cultures, so just STFU and stop bringing your vile sexist racist cr@p into this community!!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  119. Zan

    Post what you like but telling blatant lies does your argument no good at all, I have never used that term.

    I see you now seek to deny me an opinion, I guess that is the ultimate extension of the lefts goal to control the media.

    Zan if you EVER gave me facts I would read them, however all you do is spout PC rubbish and demand that it is swallowed as fact.

    Your post is a classic example of the way the hard left deal with anybody who disagrees with you, calling me a white supremest racist would be highly offensive if it came from somebody who’s opinion I rate.

    I would wager that had I made such a comment the people who run this site would at the very least delete it and quite possibly ban me from posting, it seems however that as long as you claim to be green you can abuse who ever you like.

    Actually I do wonder sometimes if you are indeed a true green, the vast majority of your posts are nothing but racist PC rubbish.

    The sooner you accept that we as a nation are not going to emerge from this crap until we have one rule for all the better, History will not treat you or people like you well.

    One question Zan, given that you are so insistent that we need special groups for Maori domestic violence, how would you feel about special Police groups set up to target the perpetrators of this domestic violence?…i bet that would have you screaming in the streets about racist police policy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  120. Wow big bruv!

    It just flows out of you doesn’t it !

    That was the funniest “stream of consciousness” writing that I have ever read.

    What fascinates me is how do humans who think as you do get to be like that?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  121. but he seems to be correct about never having said anything like that on frogblog. A search of all his comments:
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/wp-stats/wp-stats.php?author=big+bruv

    reveals that has only ever used the word women or woman 2 times:
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/11/24/exclusive-brethren-at-it-again/#comment-19542
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/11/30/brash-goes-but-will-nats-change-their-ways/#comment-20167

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  122. Stuey, if you bothered to examine what he said in context in those two posts you just linked, you would have to agree that they are proof of my point.

    In the first link…

    big bruv Says:
    “Katie

    Having just read your post I can now understand why the EB do not let woman speak.”

    …in response to Katies previous comment that “The Exclusive Bretheren, of course, don’t let their women speak, so his [Brash's] opinion about the relevance of Women’s Policy seems to have a strong corollory with that position.”

    Conclusion: Big Thug is linking the EB’s policy to “not let women speak” to Katie (as a woman) for the opinions that she just expressed. Just how many other issues does he feel women should not be able to speak about? Does he even think women should be allowed to vote, since his mentor Brash seems to be perplexed about this too.

    And the second link…

    big bruv Says:
    “Phil

    I would suggest that Coleman described the woman (or more than likely the wimin) perfectly.”

    …in response to Phils previous comment “the reason why coleman won’t lay charges is because evidence would show he lost it.. and called the woman who squirted water at him a ‘f*cken c*nt’.. repeatedly…”

    Conclusion: Big Thug believes that Coleman was justified in repeatedly calling this woman a “f*cken c*nt”. Clearly Big Thug sees that this is an appropriate way to speak to women in any situation he decrees it was warranted. I wonder how many women in our community this neanderthal thinks deserve to be referred to as a “f*cken c*nt”?

    How can a person who harbours these kinds of brutish sexist attitudes towards women be expected to have any idea whatsoever about the needs of women in general, I ask you? And never mind all the politically incorrect justifications.

    If there is such a thing as reincarnation, he should be sentenced to spend his next life on this planet as a black woman born into a low-income family with alcoholic parents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  123. Zan

    Have you ever considered how stupid your last paragraph is, how do you know that I did not come into this life facing very similar circumstances?

    I know it is much easier for you to spout your propaganda if the “enemy” all fit nicely into certain boxes, trust me on this we “the enemy” do not.

    Some of us did not use our upbringing as an excuse, and thank god that we did not come across so called good people like you.
    Some of us worked our butts off, some of us did not listen to the bloody do gooders who told us that we could not expect anything better from life, some of us decided that what ever happened in our life we were going to have a say in it and strive to do better.
    And some of us took responsibility for the choices we made in life.

    So before you decide to abuse somebody again stop and think, while I am sure you honestly believe what you say you have no bloody idea the damage you cause by giving people excuses for failing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  124. big bruv:

    PLEASE take your own advice:

    “So before you decide to abuse somebody again stop and think.”

    Your “contributions” to this blog are worryingly toxic, and you do seem to think that it is OK to attack women in particular.

    Do you not realise that this speaks volumes about the sort of person you are? I seriously suggest that you seek professional counselling.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  125. zana

    Please accept a big mental hug from me.

    You are one of the peacemakers on this blog and I often find your contributions inspiring.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  126. Let’s get one thing straight Big Bruv, I am far from being a do-gooder and my opinions on many subjects are far from being politically correct. Neither am I a person who believes in making excuses for people who fail because they are unable to take the initiative to fight for their own lives and my own life is a testament to that fact.

    There are many issues that we have clashed on publically here that I would be happy to discuss with you in more depth, but it would require disclosing certain details of my private life that I do not wish to reveal on this public forum.

    It might surprise you to know that we actually do have some common ground on quite a few issues, so as a peace offering I invite you to email me so we may converse on a more personal level.

    My address is zanavashi (at) gmx.net. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  127. Hey Eredwen, missed your reply as I was busy posting my own to BB.

    Right backatcha GF ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  128. Zan

    I will contact you soon, i think I would like to discuss a few things in a less public forum.

    Eredwen

    Why bother commenting? you and I are NEVER going to agree on anything so why waste your time.
    Personally I find your comments offensive but then they are only words after all.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  129. Big Brother, calling people stupid yet finding other people’s comments offensive(& Eredwens of all people to call offensive!), and dictating that people shouldn’t bother commenting on a public commenting blog….implies a certain “failure” of common courtesy and thinking to me.

    Now who’s to be the judge of that?

    Cause one thing is, if we had an “Liberal” personal responsibility first spouting RACKET completely running the show in New Zealand, say like Don’s Australia, then we would have new laws outlawing file sharing and the basis of the internet for free speech as we know it.

    And perhaps wouldn’t get problems like above happening in near future due to people making excuses for their failures aye? Wouldn’t that b marvellous.

    Govt should be about balancing the inherent power of property owning to that of all of it’s citizen’s rights for prosperity, and without a common wealth balancing the scales(as advocated for by Dem’s for Social Credit), the real failure is bankrupt societies, dysfunctional democracys and failure to adapt and thrive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  130. Author : eredwen

    Comment:
    JH:

    Great to see you squirming on the end of Meiria’s hook!
    Your reply: “Not those words, but that is the message I remember (ie it meant the same).
    Maybe a year ago?”

    How come your “definite” tone and the words in quote marks then?
    ===================================
    Actually I’m not squirming on Metirias hook. I was initially perplexed as when she pointed out she didn’t actually say what I quoted, I realised that she wouldn’t ofcourse, have put it in that undiplomatic tone although her tone tends to be a little scathing. One hears something on the radio and having understood the meaning, walks away repeating it; not the actual words because people don’t usually remember the actual words unless they make a point of it, what they remember is the meaning, and it is repeated over and over. Metiria said: The Greens (or Green Party) have clearly said: and then she made a short statement re Maori, the treaty, and Pakeha being here conditionally upon the treaty. It occured to me at the time that that includes recognising tino rangitiratanga and therefore territorial rights over the foreshore and seabed and Uncle Tom Codly and all.

    Here is a long diplomatic version from Nandor
    Pakeha do have a right to be in Aotearoa. The Treaty of Waitangi confers that right on us. That is why I argue that the Treaty is not primarily a Maori issue. It is a Pakeha one. Maori have a right to be here as tangata whenua. Pakeha have a right to be here because we signed a treaty giving us that right. But the right carries an obligation. It means we do not get to be here 100 per cent on our own terms.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other7291.html
    Now consider this:

    The Green Party, through its Charter and its constitution, acknowledges the indigenous language version of Te Tiriti as the legitimate text of an agreement that described the rights and responsibilities of hapu and the Crown, and which:

    1. gave the Crown the right to kawanatanga,
    2. confirmed the chiefs’ tino rangatiratanga,
    http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html

    The one missing part is the wording of Metirias statement. I would love to know what she really did say (and she did make a statement ), as I’m curious to see how my quote varies from the content and intent of the original.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  131. JH – I am trying to work out your point. Even an English version of the treaty clearly puts the onus on us to adhere to the treaty. That after all, is the nature of a treaty… it is to be adhered to… so this leaves us (well actually probably just me) a bit perplexed as to why this is important to your argument. Morally we cannot have the “right” to move into someone elses home and take it over…

    I don’t even know why some of the other people here seem to think this needs to be defended, nor why you would trouble to bring it up.

    My read of this thread is that reading this thread ain’t the best use of my time.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  132. BJ
    When the treaty was signed, the country was divided into tribal areas. The treaty only gives us the right to buy land. What ever remains belongs to the tribe, including the foreshore and seabed and lands in the conservation estate.

    Tino rangitiratanga extends into other areas of life. As Tangta Whenua they are the final authority on when that exercise of power has been satisfied or what constitutes taonga.

    As Tangata Whenua they are always above us in the “Maori world view” . This means Aotearoa is their country no matter how long we have lived here and under tino rangitiratanga the mwv is the authoritive one. Maori world view is not “point of view” it is ideology, religion.

    The whole thing is rather arbitrary, when and if we ever satisfy the treaty completely depends on chiefly authority.

    Do gooders only concentrate on a few immediate things.
    I think the treaty is unreasonable and an argument could be made for breaking, amending it.

    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  133. toad Says:
    December 19th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
    jh – you don’t do your cause any good by using terms such as “Polictical Correctness? and “Economic Marxism? – these terms are coined, usually by those who have little rigour to their arguments, to appeal to prejudice.

    I don’t agree, political correctness occurs when something is true but, people with power (eg those in government and government beaurocracies ) apply pressure to those who disagree.
    A recent example of a violation of political correctness would be when Don Brash pointed out that (?) ” to my knowledge there are no full blooded Maoris left”. The resulting furor was a lot of huffing and blowing and hyperventilating, but (as far as I know), little in the way of a solid direct refutation of what he said.
    Power is exercised by promotion opportunities and grading in educational institutions.
    [arguing the rest would take too long but we seem to have an issue as to whether minorities can be in the wrong or not]
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  134. JH

    To a small extent what you are saying is one of the reasons I proposed the idea of a constitution that would supercede the treaty.

    However, that is not Green policy. Green policy addresses the current obligations which are real, legal and moral. My proposal does explore the area of altering the balance and removing the ambiguities, but that is another issue entirely.

    The issue is not “blood” JH, it is inheritance. We Pakeha inherit an obligation that our ancestors signed us up for. The Maori inherit the land. The “bloodedness” is irrelevant to the tribal rights. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  135. jh : Can we baldly state where you’re coming from? That would make the discussion a lot clearer.

    It seems to me that, implicitly, you argue the pakeha right to dominance through conquest. (That would be Big Bro’s position too, if he were articulate enough to put it into words.) This is a legitimate notion, you shouldn’t be afraid to state it (though perhaps you will be ashamed to state it, who knows). But it’s useful if people don’t hide behind masks, but own up to their beliefs.

    You’ve made a useful start by raising the idea that the treaty should be broken or amended. Do you advocate that the non-Maori majority, as inheritors of the British crown, should repudiate its signature unilaterally? Or do you suggest that the two parties should renegotiate the provisions as equals?

    Brash and “full blooded maoris” — oh dear, you’re slipping into troll mode. If you are honest, you will acknowledge that this is pure unadulterated strawman. Nobody, as far as I know, defines “Maori” as “100% genetically pure Maori”, in fact the very notion is explicitly racist (the very notion of race is, technically, racist, because it is scientific fact that there are no distinct races within humanity). Being Maori is not a matter of “race” but of culture and inheritance. Talk of “percentage” or “racial purity” is just silliness.

    “whether minorities can be in the wrong or not” — that’s a fascinating issue. I should say that the very notion that a minority can be “in the wrong” is a very dangerous one. (are we talking about collective responsibility for the opinions or acts of individuals within that minority?) I would certainly hope that, in a democracy, such an idea will be strictly out of bounds. Clearly, German Jews were “in the wrong” in the 1930s…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  136. Well said alistair !

    bj: How very American of you! My legal friends tell me that we already have the equivalent of a constitution (apparently self updating) !

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  137. bjchip Says:
    December 24th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
    JH
    To a small extent what you are saying is one of the reasons I proposed the idea of a constitution that would supercede the treaty.
    However, that is not Green policy. Green policy addresses the current obligations which are real, legal and moral. My proposal does explore the area of altering the balance and removing the ambiguities, but that is another issue entirely.
    The issue is not “blood? JH, it is inheritance. We Pakeha inherit an obligation that our ancestors signed us up for. The Maori inherit the land. The “bloodedness? is irrelevant to the tribal rights. It has nothing to do with political correctness.
    respectfully
    BJ
    ============
    I agree we should address current obligations but I think we as the treaty partner have a right to be 100% clear as to what those obligations are. We cannot have ten different people demanding ten different things or having ten different views of the cultural requirements, or have these things changing over time. Do we as Pakeha, for instance have to accept the Maori World View, of Maori as Tangata Whenua in the full sense?. What are our obligations re the foreshore and seabed under tino rangitiritanga? Will Iwi authorities control all the coast or just parts? Etc.
    ==================================
    147. alistair Says:
    December 24th, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    jh : Can we baldly state where you’re coming from? That would make the discussion a lot clearer.
    It seems to me that, implicitly, you argue the pakeha right to dominance through conquest. (That would be Big Bro’s position too, if he were articulate enough to put it into words.) This is a legitimate notion, you shouldn’t be afraid to state it (though perhaps you will be ashamed to state it, who knows). But it’s useful if people don’t hide behind masks, but own up to their beliefs.
    ===============
    I’m saying that however we got here, we have a right to know what our obligations are under the treaty (as explained to BJ above), and having fully explored and understood those obligations, it is sensible to point out that, if conditions are too unfavorable people will not voluntarily comply.
    ============================
    Alistair says:
    You’ve made a useful start by raising the idea that the treaty should be broken or amended. Do you advocate that the non-Maori majority, as inheritors of the British crown, should repudiate its signature unilaterally? Or do you suggest that the two parties should renegotiate the provisions as equals?
    ====================================
    We should get to a point where we agree on every aspect of Treaty obligations (as explained above) and then try to reach a consensus on what is reasonable and what isn’t. If Maori and Pakeha can’t agree then we simply agree to disagree, let the treaty lie and face the music.
    ======================================
    Alistair says:
    Brash and “full blooded maoris? — oh dear, you’re slipping into troll mode. If you are honest, you will acknowledge that this is pure unadulterated strawman. Nobody, as far as I know, defines “Maori? as “100% genetically pure Maori?, in fact the very notion is explicitly racist (the very notion of race is, technically, racist, because it is scientific fact that there are no distinct races within humanity). Being Maori is not a matter of “race? but of culture and inheritance. Talk of “percentage? or “racial purity? is just silliness.
    =============================
    My perception is that when Tariana Turia says: “we are a colonized people” she must be implying a blood line as only Maori were colonized. Other wise she would say “we are a (partly) colonized people”.
    If ” Being Maori is not a matter of “race? but of culture and inheritance.” Some of that cultural influence must be Pakeha culture, yet, some Maori say: “we can’t live in your culture”
    ===============================
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  138. Off Topic

    May I take this chance to wish all frogs a very happy festive season and all the best for the new year.
    I look forward to chatting again with you all soon.
    Take care and be safe.

    Big Bruv

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  139. Maori and Non-Maori: Which Way Forward?

    Dr. Elizabeth Rata

    23 March 2004

    Abstract

    A ‘culturalist’ orthodoxy dominates the nation’s discussions of Maori issues, ethnic and cultural diversity, and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi.

    According to supporters of culturalism, recognising the Treaty leads to justice for Maori and provides a sound foundation for New Zealand’s ethnically diverse society. I argue the opposite case claiming that culturalism leads to the establishment of pre-modern, anti-democratic conditions with serious consequences for New Zealand’s future.

    http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=92
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  140. That’s an interesting link JH. I don’t think she’s got all the answers though it’s clear she thinks she does.

    She got the first part of the answer OK,

    1. Constitutional and political changes to re-affirm democracy.

    2. A future-oriented national culture that supports democracy.

    but fails IMHO, when she gets into some other specific proposals.


    Constitutional and Political Recommendations

    • Re-define the neotribes as private economic corporations

    • Reject the idea that the neotribes are partners in a political or constitutional relationship with the government.

    • Remove all political functions from the neotribes (except in their capacity as lobbyists and associations of citizens).

    • Remove neotribal positions in all government institutions (e.g. central and local government, education and health). Redefine as interest groups.

    • Remove Treaty principles from legislation and policy.

    • Limit Treaty settlements to specific historical breaches of the law and redefine Treaty settlement recipients as associations of individuals.

    • Abolish the Maori parliamentary seats.

    • Use affirmative action programmes justified by particular circumstances/need (eg. Anti-smoking campaigns with a Maori cultural focus and Maori language programmes).

    The treaty is a legally binding recognition of Maori tribes having some very specific rights. Her calling them “neo-tribes” is a clear linguistic device to try to diminish their actual identity and much of what she proposes is a clear bid to actually destroy them completely. Half right though, IMHO, because I believe that an actual Constitution might do NZ good…

    and before you start in on how NZ already has one Eredwen I should remind you that it isn’t one that includes the Maori in a way that would allow the treaty to be superceded. If NZ wants to move forward with all of us united, it has to actually do something different than every other nation on the planet has done.

    respectfully
    BJ
    I have a lot of faith in our ability to get along with each other. I have a lot less faith in our ability to do so by asking the Maori to unilaterally give up the one thing that is working in their favour in return for (several reserved words omitted here) nothing.

    Just saying.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  141. Woohooo! I learned a new wingnut debate jargon word the other day and I finally get a chance to use it, thanks to JH’s last reply:

    WOBLies: “Claiming that a policy cannot be racist or elitist because at least one old black woman has been found to support it. From Marc Rogers’ WOBL = ‘Wise Old Black Lady’, describing a character common to many horror or sci-fi movies who knows everything necessary for the white heroes to move forward in the plot without dying immediately. (Michael Turyn)”

    http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/ethel/atrios-dictionary.html

    Errrrr, nice one JH :roll:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  142. bjchip Says:
    December 28th, 2006 at 11:58 pm

    The treaty is a legally binding recognition of Maori tribes having some very specific rights.
    **************
    Actually the treaty isn’t “legal” until it is ratified by parliment.

    The “very specific rights” has me scratching my head. Can you specify those rights eg: ownership of the Foreshore and seabed

    [ * Is this debate a new issue?

    No. Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.

    * So it’s a Treaty issue then?

    It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.

    However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

    I remember you saying you spent 2 hours gazing at the treaty at Te Papa. You should perhaps have spent more time thinking about the circumstances underwhich it was drawn up. Does it float when you put it in water.
    Essentially, under the treaty we have no legitimacy, but the full terms are too much in Moaris favour (“Aotearoa is Moari” …tino rangitratanga…whatever they claim is their taonga..cultural requirement). The Pakeha majority will just ignore it, try to settle treaty claims, and hope it blows over in the future. Meanwhile the culturalists are trying to grow and consolidate. Thank goodness for skeptics such as DrRata.

    A constitution is a sort of refined and well thought out consensus. Skeptics will have trouble with any incorporation of tribalist (closed society thinking) in any constitution.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  143. The treaty wasn’t ratified by the British Parliament? I suppose that could be true, but I don’t think that this point of view would gather anything but brickbats if it were used as a basis for unilaterally abrogating the agreement.

    The rights were to land and treasures which would be defined in Maori terms. I should not have used the word specific, they are broadly defined. One of the things that I recall from my reading is the impression that they did pretty well out of it. However, I don’t see that as a reason to negate it. The one thing the treaty clearly does is divide the present occupants of NZ into people who are members of the signatory tribes and people who are not. This makes it almost impossible to imagine any solution that does not maintain a large advantage to the Maori gaining their support. It is impossible to accept the idea of IMPOSING a solution on them simply because there’s more of us.

    I didn’t take your meaning away from what I read either. We have legitimacy provided we live on land that was legally purchased (and we’ve satisfied NZIS of course). I don’t know how a lawyer would argue either side though. It is a Gordian knot of sorts and the only question is how to cut through it.

    I didn’t see any reason why a Constitution could not be attempted to resolve this. Dividing the parliament is a heckuva better deal than dividing the country or the law.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  144. BJ
    To cut a long story short I downloaded an open source argument mapping program
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/argumentative/

    I am (just beginning as an experiment) to apply it to the proposition “the Treaty Should Be Abolished”). It certainly seems to clarify issues. Somehow we need to develop argument mapping so that it can become a collaborative online effort.
    I think the amount of frustration and angst is proprtional to the distance from the exact position in the structure of the argument.
    JH

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  145. Looked at the site and downloaded it as well. Only drawback is that it wants windows to work, and that is an argument that Redmond lost as far as I am concerned, many years ago.

    Still, it looks fairly interesting. I’ve seen analysis like that done before… but not in Software.

    No real frustration nor angst where I am. I am too pessimistic about the planet as a whole and too much a latecomer to NZ to become excitable over the treaty or the way NZ resolves it. It affects me, and my children, but I want to let the people who’ve been living their whole lives with it work it out.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>