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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

With apologies to the International Workers of the World for the hijacking…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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

”

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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 “raceâ€? 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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

toad Says:
December 19th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
jh – you don’t do your cause any good by using terms such as “Polictical Correctnessâ€? and “Economic Marxismâ€? – 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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)

um, hey, cool it folks.
may I refer you to frogs new advice/help pages:

“Frog recommends that before posting a comment everyone take the time to reflect on what you have written and whether it may be insulting to others, or may be read the wrong way.”

http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/help-how-to/comment-moderation/
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/help-how-to/smilies-and-formatting/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

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: 0  0 (0)