Labour MIA at the Maori representation hui

The hui at Orakei Marae today was excellent. Ngati Whaatua put out the call for Maori in Tamaki Makaurau to gather to consider what should be done next to oppose the government’s rejection of guaranteed Maori seats on the new Auckland unitary council. They have decided to hold a hikoi on 25 May, the 31st anniversary of the Bastion Point occupation. In attendance were MP’s Pita Sharples, Hone Harawira and Georgina Te Heuheu and myself. But where was Labour?

Labour has made a meal out of critiquing the Maori Party for their agreement with National, notwithstanding Labour’s own utter rejection of the Maori Party in 2005. Labour’s dismal failure to take heed of its own Maori MP’s over the foreshore and seabed issue came back to bite them in the proverbial and only has itself to blame for the emergence of the Maori Party as a political force in opposition to Labour.

Funnily enough, Labour has since the election a new found enthusiasm for defending Maori, noticeably absent for many years now. So, given Labour’s hue and cry over the effect of National’s policy on Maori, why werent they at this hui to support Maori representation on the Auckland council? What is their position? Its a bit of a mystery.

246 thoughts on “Labour MIA at the Maori representation hui

  1. It is probably more important for Labour to focus on the “birthright” of New Zealanders to view the rugby world cup matches for free, then to worry about racial pandering

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

  2. “why werent they at this hui to support Maori representation on the Auckland council?”

    Probably because they realise it is racist rubbish, Maori have as much chance as anybody else to get elected to council, they have no more right to be there than I have.

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

  3. “Probably because they realise it is racist rubbish, Maori have as much chance as anybody else to get elected to council, they have no more right to be there than I have.”

    Well said.That we are in the 21st century and still people like Metiria Turei are expousing this evil racist rubbish is shocking and shameful…but whos suprised? Those sick making scenes of Metiria crawling up to Tariana Turia in the house to the point of almost proposing marriage shows clearly where she really wants to be….in the Maori Party.

    Is that the sort of person the Greens want as a co leader? Someone who wants to be in another party?

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

  4. I have been hearing the basis for Maori representation is mana whenua and today tino rangitiratanga via the treaty. Under the treaty tino rangitiratanga is a big issue, but it is about more than 3 seats on the greater Auckland council more (perhaps) 50:50 Moari: Pakeha. The main issue though is what is best for everyone. If ignoring the treaty is a problem revue the historical circumstance that led to it’s signing.

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

  5. Is that the sort of person the Greens want as a co leader? Someone who wants to be in another party?

    I’d say you are a fool, but you may just be fooling.

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

  6. We wouldn’t trust the New Zealand farmer with guardianship over their farmland but you trust Moari to have guardianship over foreshore and seabed.

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

  7. Why the fuck is something an entitlement that nobody even considered a month ago?

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

  8. No direct appointments to office based on race.

    We live in a democracy, not a banana republic.

    >>But where was Labour?

    Why should they meet with supporters of apartheid?

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

  9. Why should anyone meet with supporters of apartheid?

    By taking part, the Green Party has shown itself to be racist. Those greens who protested South African apartheid will be turning in their graves, beds or zimmers at this despicable policy.

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

  10. The Green party should stay out of this as it is not an environmental issue. The individual Green MP’s should, of course, be free to act as individuals.

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

  11. Hmmmm… Europeans seize control of a country, set up an immigration policy that favours Europeans, then say “Hey, now we’re in the majority – let’s have democracy!”

    Maori seats don’t seem a particularly good solution to this problem – but what is? I’ll leave that to the fans of representative democracy to work that out.

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

  12. “Hmmmm… Europeans seize control of a country, set up an immigration policy that favours Europeans, then say “Hey, now we’re in the majority – let’s have democracy!”

    Don’t include me in that….I belive in a free society…not a democracy.

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

  13. >>Europeans seize control of a country, set up an immigration policy that favours Europeans

    At the time, it sure beat slavery, cannibalism, and inter-tribal warfare.

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

  14. At the time, it sure beat slavery, cannibalism, and inter-tribal warfare.

    True, the europeans were not into cannibalism

    But the europeans still practised slavery (abolished in most, but not all, the brittish empire 7 years before the treaty.) As for inter tribal warefare the europeans were in the midsts of centries of intertribal warefare that killed millions and millions and lasted to the middle of the 20th. century, and is probably not over yet, just in hiatus.

    If you are going to boast about the wonders of European civilisation, better choose different criteria!

    peace
    W

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

  15. Bliss

    So lets do the right thing, hand the country back to the Maori people (only the pure blooded ones) and the rest of us live under their rule!

    Perhaps that would give us peace and bliss!

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

  16. Bliss,
    While it is true that europeans can hardley be considered great in those respects, I think the point of BP’s post is that they didint bring them here; it doesint matter what they are like in their own lands but rather how they contributed here where they did act to remove those things and utimatly have enhanced life for maori greatly. be it access to food, freedom from feud, or education and health.

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

  17. Strings, what an extraordinary conclusion to draw from the idea that 3 out of 23 seats on a council be set aside for Maori. One must be careful not to get too paranoid about such things. Although, history has shown us here how easy it is for one people to arrive and take over a country belonging to another people.

    But to the point, the mayors of Auckland have recommended a ward system, that is representation on the council based on the electorates. In that case, having three seats for the voters in Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau and Hauraki Tainui would be perfectly equitable. Of course, many of you here wont like that anyway because you dont appear to support the concept of guaranteed tangata whenua representation. The belly aching is pointless cos its party policy.

    So it seems to me that if all the other electorates are represented, so should the Maori electorates. Although this is a different reason to that provided by the Treaty, it is nonetheless consistent with the mayors argument.

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

  18. Metiria,

    While in concensus with you regarding Maori seat in a democratic fashion as per the New Zealand parliament, I cant agree with you that they should be based on tribal lines.

    The Maori parliament seats are selected from electorates based on the volume of people equally balanced between one seat and the next.

    What you are proposing in allowing the three tribes to have their individual seats is not democratic at all. One tribe may only have 1000 members and have one representative on the council.

    While a ward may have 75000 people on the roll and yet have only one member.

    That is blatantly unequal and unfair.

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

  19. The sad thing is, that with the growing Asian and Polynesian population in Auckland the treaty is becomming rapidly irrelevant.
    With both these groups now drastically out numbering Maori, the writing is on the wall.
    NZ has been too idealistic regarding race relations, empowering all the wrong types of attitudes under a decade of left wing experimentation that any UN policy maker would be proud of, and like the UN it just dosn’t work.
    This could be a good thing for Maori, to bring them together and develop strong leadership among their people.
    Guranteed positions on any board just garantees dip stick board members.

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

  20. >>one people to arrive and take over a country belonging to another people

    Is that what you really think? Land belonged to Maori?

    “The intellectually lazy can often be heard opining (amongst other nonsense) that before Europeans arrived all of New Zealand was owned by the Maori who inhabited some parts of the country. This is the ‘thinking’ that somehow concludes that some four hundred tribesmen somehow ‘owned’ the entire South Island! This is the sort of thinking that I can only conclude is utter tosh.

    …So why, when there was so much pressure on resources, were Taranaki and Auckland empty? One very good reason: It was too damned dangerous to live there.

    Taranaki was too dangerous, because of constant utu wars with Waikato Maoris. As historian Keith Sinclair explains: “Taranaki was almost unpopulated because in the [eighteen] twenties, after many of the local Maoris had migrated to Otaki and Cook’s Strait, the Waikato tribes had killed or enslaved all the rest.”4

    Those Taranaki Maoris who had fled – and who had thereby avoided being been killed, eaten or enslaved – only began to arrive back in Taranaki once it was safe to do so. What made it safe was the rule of law – the protection of individual rights that British law once did so well.”

    Good article: tinyurl.com/cd5opt

    If it wasn’t for “the blo@dy Romans, it’s questionable whether the Maori race would have survived at all in any great number.

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

  21. I met an american preacher a few years ago that had a ministry involving ethnic minorities and the colonisation of native people.
    This guy had a remarkable saying that sumed up most of his findings:

    “Internal strife brings an external oppressor”

    While the mistakes of the colonisers should not be ignored, neither should the condition of the community of the native people at the time of colonisation.
    I would assume that if ethnic minorities blame everything on the colonisers they will tend to overlook their own faults to the detriment of their people.

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

  22. I heard a discussion on RNZ this afternoon about water rights being sold in Hawkes Bay. The person interviewed had an American accent. It ocurred to me that if Maori want to be elected they have to have something to say and the intelligence and oratory to get it across. The sort of leadership coming from that corner is the cultural fundamentalist stuff we hear from Magaret Mutu (Ngati Edinburgh).

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

  23. bliss Says:
    “But the europeans still practised slavery (abolished in most, but not all, the brittish empire 7 years before the treaty.) ”

    “On 1 August 1834, all slaves in the British Empire were emancipated, but they were indentured to their former owners in an apprenticeship system which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships ended two years later on 1 August 1840.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

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

  24. “This is the ‘thinking’ that somehow concludes that some four hundred tribesmen somehow ‘owned’ the entire South Island! This is the sort of thinking that I can only conclude is utter tosh.”

    I understand some people think a few farmers and assorted wealthy landowners actually own large tracts of the country. Some even consider expatriate companies to be legal owners of land they don’t even live on!

    “I would assume that if ethnic minorities blame everything on the colonisers they will tend to overlook their own faults to the detriment of their people.”

    Have you ever actually heard someone from an ethnic minority say “we have no faults – everything is the fault of the colonisers”?

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

  25. Sam Buchanan Says:
    April 16th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    > Some even consider expatriate companies to be legal owners of land they don’t even live on!

    as opposed, presumably, to land that expatriate companies do live on

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

  26. “Have you ever actually heard someone from an ethnic minority say “we have no faults – everything is the fault of the colonisers”?”

    No I haven’t, that statement usually comes from well meaning but mis guided left wing hand wringers winding up ethnic miniorities under a psuedo human rights agenda.
    How was the term “post colonial syndrome” coined again?

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

  27. Metiria said . . . . .
    “Strings, what an extraordinary conclusion to draw from the idea that 3 out of 23 seats on a council be set aside for Maori. One must be careful not to get too paranoid about such things. Although, history has shown us here how easy it is for one people to arrive and take over a country belonging to another people”

    There seem to be three points here, let me address them individually.

    First, why is this extraordinary?
    There seems to be a belief in some parts of Maoridom that ‘The Crown” has failed to deliver everything it should have under the treaty. That being accepted, why is it not reasonable for it (The Crown) to withdraw from the treaty and hand back governance of the country to Maori? While there are a large number of settlers in the country that will have to be dealt with, they do not necessarily prohibit establishment of Maori tradition as the dominant form of governance for the country.

    I seriously believe that the colonialism of my ancestors was wrong, and should be reversed. Not just here, but in many lands! I look at what is happening in my wife’s home country – Sri Lanka – which was colonised by three European countries, and despair of the whole heritage we that was left behind.

    Let the country be Aotearoa, let the 2nd set of invaders (Maori) rule, and let we immigrants live in peace and harmony with out hosts.

    Second – Paranoia
    Why would this be paranoid? Surely it is what Maori have hoped and wished for for generations now? They were clearly tricked into signing the Treaty, the Maori and English versions of which do not agree, and so it should be regarded as signed under duress or fraud, in which case natural justice would render it null and void as a binding document.

    Thirdly – the history of invasion
    Your comment is perfectly true, as evidenced by the purported eviction of Moriori by Maori as well as dozens of other examples. However, there are also many examples of migrant settlers arriving in new countries and living under the rule of the inhabitants. The Chinese diaspora, the Indian diaspora, the Irish diaspora, all have happened and none of them have resulted in the new arrivals governing the existing population. SO there is no absolute precedent that says it must be, or stay, the way it is here in Aotearoa.

    Let’s start with a constitution, agreed to by all Iwi, and move on from there, as there’s clearly too many problems with what we have here today.

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

  28. Metiria

    To your main point; (given that it may take more than a year to reconstruct the old system of governance,) indeed, let’s look at the fact that the mayors of Auckland have recommended a ward system, that is representation on the council based on electorates, and so Maori should have seats based on the tribal system.

    The issue here is that under your approach, one set of electorates is geographically based while the other ignores geography for tribal affiliation. I’m sure you can see that some would regard this as inequitable (as they do the Parliamentary Maori seats) because it gives one set of people a choice of how they will place their vote and denies that choice to the other. If it was a requirement that Maori ONLY be allowed to cast their vote in a Maori Roll electorate it might be more acceptable, but that’s not the way things are at national level nor proposed for Auckland.

    So perhaps there is a more equitable approach that gives Maori dedicated seats and yet maintains equity.

    From what I have read, there are about 200,000 Maori in the geography of “Super Auckland”, and you think that 3 seats would be appropriate. That, on a proportional representation basis would suggest that there should be a total of 22 seats on the council (1,450,000 /200,000 * 3) leaving 19 to be distributed between the rest of the population. Let us accept your proposition that tribal lines is an appropriate method of distribution, and have the rest of Auckland’s select their ‘tribe’ and become electors on that tribal role. This might mean some unusual tribal definitions; for instance “pacific’ for all who originate from an island in the pacific that is not in New Zealand or Australia. “IndoAsian” for those Asians with roots in the Asian sub-continent (Fijian Indians would have to pick between the two!) “British”, separate from “European” separate from “Australasian” and with a “none-specific” catchall for those with no declared tribal affiliation.

    This approach would have the benefit of ensuring Maori were appropriately represented along with all other tribes in Auckland, and there could be no charge that Maori were demanding special treatment based on race.

    I recommend it to your serious consideration and look forward to your comments on its efficacy.

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

  29. I don’t get time to check the lily-pond regularly enough to participate actively in many of the debates (or what passes for them in some cases). For example, Strings, I was going to come back to you on some comments you made in response to some of mine on another thread, but it was too late really by the time I had the opportunity. However I just wanted to say that I appreciated yourconsidered and thoughtful response to Metiria – thanks.

    In response to your second point, suggesting Maori were “tricked” into signing the Treaty, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear that this was, indeed, the intention of Hobson and, particularly, Williams. In fact Williams prepared the Maori text (the one that was actually signed) to be different to Hobson’s English draft – this was not just sloppy translation – because he knew that Maori would never sign away their sovereignty (or mana). Evidence of ill intent is also to be found from Colenso’s failed attempt to stop the signing, on the basis that the Maori text being signed was not congruent with the Crown’s intention.

    Over the years it has been good to see much less use of the claim that “Maori ceded sovereignty”. I guess this reflects a growing understanding that they did no such thing (both literally the case, and supported by international treaty law, which holds that a treaty such as this must be interpreted in the light of the understanding of those to whom it is offered).

    What this means is that there is now increasing focus on how to give effect to the Treaty in a modern context. Following a Court of Appeal decision, the principal focus over the past 20 years has been on “power sharing” or “shared sovereignty”. I guess one of the principles behind the 3 manawhenua seats proposed for the Auckland Supercity is to reflect this idea (albeit in a weak form).

    Apropos of your first point, one of the interesting things that occurred in the decades following the Treaty’s signing was that effectively separate “zones” developed reflecting Crown or Maori control (one of the principal reasons Maori were interested in the Treaty in the first place was to get the Crown to control the unruly behaviour of Pakeha). While not suggesting this is the way forward for a modern context, it appeared to work reasonably well, and seems an interesting point of reference for some of our current debates.

    By the way, I think it would be reasonable to say that I was one of the leaders of the anti-apartheid movement in New Zealand in the 1980s (re one of your earlier posts) and, despite being sometimes a restless sleeper, I don’t find any problem or irony with the approach being suggested for Auckland – both the approach taken by the anti-apartheid movement and the approach being taken to honour the Treaty have been situationally-appropriate responses to the problems of colonialism and racism.

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

  30. Kevin
    Metiria is a though-provoking correspondent, and has often impelled me to rethink some of my old conclusions.

    In this situation, I REALLY do believe that the Anglo Saxon hedonist approach to governance is proven to have failed to have long-term sustainability. Just look at the rise in crime, (despite the definition becoming somewhat relaxed over the decades,) that is taking place, and the general deterioration of morals and ethics. I am prepared to say that we got it wrong and need something to replace it; so instead of starting from scratch, let’s give ‘the other way’ a try, it might prove to be much better.

    Last point on apartheid. I HATE the very concept of racial discrimination, both positive and negative. In my immediate family there are Brits, Canadians, Sri Lankans, Maori, Irish and Fijian. My room-mate in 7th form boarding school was a (very) black Nigerian. I have raised my children to be skin-colour blind, and it has resulted in this mixture at their generational level. I’m afraid I see NO VALUE or CORRECTNESS in any form of apartheid, even when ‘justified’ by treaty as in Canada (with the first nations treaty with the Mississauga,) and here.

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

  31. Thanks Strings. I acknowledge your strong feeling about this. I guess the distinction that I would draw is between personal racism (or lack thereof) and institutional or systemic racism. I think I agree with you, at least mostly, that we should strive to behave at an interpersonal level that makes no distinction based on race or ethnicity. My slight problem with the “skin colour blind” formulation is that I set out to be sensitive to the culture and values of those I am interacting with, which will sometimes require race or ethnicity to be taken into account. But nonetheless the principle of unprejudiced (if that’s a word) personal behaviour I certainly agree with.

    What I find more difficult is that institutions or systems are not now and have not been unprejudiced. If we look at any colonised society, the current position of those who have been colonised is severely compromised as a result of the systematic depletion of human capital and other resources. Thus the position of Maori today is very largely determined by the impacts on their ethnic group specifically of land alienation, discriminatory laws and so forth.

    The question is how best this can be put right (just confining the discussion for the moment to those of us who agree that this is a necessary or desirable aim). It seems to me that universalism (treating everybody in the same way) just isn’t going to cut it – the crude analogy being a running race where the finish line is the same, but one set of runners starts way behind the other. Therefore the putting right will require institutional responses that recognise the source of the disadvantage through policies that are responsive to the particular need of the disadvantaged group.

    While this relates to ethnicity in this particular example, the same principle applies to any other group that has experienced systematic disadvantage (and whose starting point in the race is therefore moved further from the finish line).

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

  32. Kevin
    Cultural sensitivity is, I believe, different to skin-colour response, which categorises people immediately based on their ‘colour’, my belief is that you treat everyone as a person, and give them total trust and respect from the minute you meet them. They don’t have to earn these things in my book, but they can loose them!

    I appreciate your view on the staring point being different, and agree conceptually with it. However, you also have to take into account the fact that the starting points in colonisation went much further back than the arrival of the colonists. IN Africa, cannibalism was normal as was rape and theft; the arrival of colonists with different morals, definitions of right and wrong and value systems brought new opportunities to ‘the natives’ as well as disruption of their evolution. However, these 20/20 visions of the past are irrelevant to making real progress as opposed to correcting the wrongs of the past.

    In New Zealand, today what we need to do is move forward, and I am suggesting we start anew, with the basic foundation that all legal residents are equal, under a traditional Maori approach rather than the traditional British one. Do you agree this would be a better way, if so what are the steps that are required, if not why not?

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

  33. Kevin so when a Maori daughter of a wealthy lawyer family gets a publicly funded scholarship to study law, and then a similar scholarship from the public sector for a job and to do postgraduate study, whereas a non-Maori daughter of a poor immigrant family can’t – what is that “putting right”?

    Isn’t your issue the uncomfortable fact that disproportionately too many Maori families cripple their own kids through their own negligence and criminal behaviour, and this has been fed through a welfare state that rewards breeding without consequences?

    The source of disadvantage is not being born of a certain identity – it is how your family treats you. That is a choice of that family, and to perpetuate the cop-out that “colonisation is why I beat up my kids” is just vile.

    Thousands of New Zealanders immigrated from countries torn apart by conflict, fleeing oppression and war, many thousands are descended from people who lived through wars that took their sons, or suffered poverty. The sufferings of your ancestors is no reason to fail your children.

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

  34. Strings,
    Im not entirly sure if this is different to what you are proposing, it may be too early in the morning for me, but;
    Give individuals a choice. Allow them to register their preference to vote in the general councel election or for a delegated seat. When people register on the electoral role, if they are in auckland, they express their desired election method. Where there is a sufficent number of individuals registering interest in voting for a specific cultural/ethnic group representitive then that should be made availible, if they express interest but there is less than the required amount of interest then they must vote on the general electoral candidates. E.g., if there were 22 seats that would be just under 66666 people per electorate, so if 130000 maori registered as interested in voting for a clade seat but the others prefered general then there would be two maori seats out of that 22 and if pacific islanders only registerd a 30000 interest then they would not be a sufficent electorate and would have to vote in the general.

    I dont like this devisive type of identity politics, infact I think it foul. But I think such a system as I propose would be potentially more advantagous.

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

  35. Strings,

    with the basic foundation that all legal residents are equal, under a traditional Maori approach rather than the traditional British one

    lol, you can do worse than the british approach; the maori approach would be one such example.

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

  36. Sapient.
    I think you got it in one.
    My “none-specific” catchall would be the equivalent of your general poll, and I have no problem attributing seats on a x voters – 1 seat basis.

    Like you, I am not enamoured of ethnic polling, but in order to meat Maori ambitions for Maori seats, this would be an acceptable compromise to me.

    Happy daze!

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

  37. Sapient
    Your second post has me confused. My “British one” was a Westminster type parliament, my “Maori one” was based on tribal tradition. Can you help me understand your point so I can laugh too, please?

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

  38. Strings,
    well quite simply the very notion of equallity requires a significant number of people and a significant amount of power held by those people and organised, no one can say in all truth that it existed before europeans arived. A tribal system can never support equality as by the very nature of a tribal system their interests are played off against each other and due to this they seek to advantage themselves and disadvantage the others, be it the group as a whole or members of that group as individuals.

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

  39. …anyway, somehow I thought you were talking about judicial systems…

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

  40. “In response to your second point, suggesting Maori were “tricked” into signing the Treaty, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear that this was, indeed, the intention of Hobson and, particularly, Williams.”

    It is this sort of revisionist crap that will ensure no true working relationship between Maori and Pakeha will happen any time soon.
    That the treaty was violated by unsavory white men in the years after the signing is not in dispute, but to suggest that the whole exercise was a sham is the sort of stuff that starts civil wars.
    You are a very dangerous man mr Hague.

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

  41. Sapient
    my friend,
    I was putting equality down as a basic foundation for the future, and encouraging Maori to take over governance of New Zealand, using whatever their traditions suggest would be the appropriate approach.

    I agree that the traditions of tribal societies do not rest on equality, neither intra- nor inter-tribe I merely provide it as a base. The concept of equality has become mere lip-service in our Westminster based governance of today, with it very clear that he/she who is loaded with cash have a much better likelihood of getting what justice they might seek as they will be able to pay for representation that is not generally available for free. Ergo, the tribal system may be better, and no worse, that the ‘equality’ we have now.

    Personally I find equality over rated! I don’t want to be equal to someone who doesn’t have a work ethic, doesn’t aspire to more than they have or doesn’t treat their whanau and neighbors well. However, that’s a different discussion, eh!

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

  42. “I was putting equality down as a basic foundation for the future, and encouraging Maori to take over governance of New Zealand, using whatever their traditions suggest would be the appropriate approach.”

    Are you for real? You think that Maori are imune to the power and control issues the rest of the human race struggle with?. Your suggestion would only reignite tribal warfare with modern weaponry to establish which Maori would govern!

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

  43. Shunda barunda
    I am not sure that there was an intent to ‘trick’, what I do know is that the meanings of the two versions are very different. I would readily believe that Hobson and Williams, in a single evening, were unable to achieve an accurate translation because the concepts they were trying to translate did not exist in the Maori language of those times. Indeed, I wonder if they do today?

    However, you will find, if you re-read your quote, that Mr. Hague was expressing an opinion (“I think”), which is something he is entitled to express. He does not claim it as fact, nor does he condone it. This makes it not “revisionist crap” as you so eloquently put it, and unless taken out of context by people with an agenda will never result in Civil War.

    What is certain, is that no true working relationship between Maori and Pakeha will happen any time soon because the Westminster system has failed us as a society, and while the treaty may have been violated by unsavory white men in the years after the signing it has been widely reinterpreted by Maori and others in recent years. It is time to abandon the Westminster system, abrogate the treaty, and start again. I propose we do it under the Maori Tribal Traditions, do you see any major impediment to taking that approach?

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

  44. Shunda barunda

    You said “You think that Maori are imune (sic) to the power and control issues the rest of the human race struggle with?. Your suggestion would only reignite tribal warfare with modern weaponry to establish which Maori would govern!”

    It is clear, from earlier posts you have made, that you believe Maori have been hard done by as a result of the treaty and governance by “The Crown”. I agree! I have suggested an alternative which you reject based on human nature, what then do your propose as an alternative?

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

  45. “I propose we do it under the Maori Tribal Traditions, do you see any major impediment to taking that approach”

    Yes, there are too many people of other races that will refuse to submit to maori tribal traditions.
    Forcing culture on other people has never worked, it always tends to end in violence.

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

  46. Why Shunda barunda, that is inaccurate.

    Look at America, which has always had an ‘be assimilated or go away’ approach to cultural absorption. That seems to have worked (for a vast -99%- majority).

    Look at much of Africa, where the Western way has been adopted to the point where many government officials even wear clothing adapted to European climate rather than that of Africa. Zimbabwe is perhaps the most striking example of this where even the President, who HATES the British, is never seen without a suit, collar and tie!.

    Look at Egypt, where the confluence around the Nile of dozens of peoples form all over the Middle East and Africa has produced an essentially harmonious society.

    There are many examples of cultural absorption working, though it takes a generation or two to settle. Here in New Zealand we have tried coexistence rather than assimilation and it hasn’t worked. Why not TRY the locals’ traditions when ours have failed? If we make Maori Tribal Traditions the basis of a constitution and adopt the constitution by plebiscite, why wouldn’t it be accepted? Those who could not abide by such a constitution would, of course, be free to leave and settle elsewhere, and I am sure there would be plenty of countries who would view such people as refugees and give them refuge – such is the state of the world today.

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

  47. “In response to your second point, suggesting Maori were “tricked” into signing the Treaty, I think the historical evidence is pretty clear that this was, indeed, the intention of Hobson and, particularly, Williams. In fact Williams prepared the Maori text (the one that was actually signed) to be different to Hobson’s English draft – this was not just sloppy translation – because he knew that Maori would never sign away their sovereignty (or mana). Evidence of ill intent is also to be found from Colenso’s failed attempt to stop the signing, on the basis that the Maori text being signed was not congruent with the Crown’s intention.”

    “ill intent” or just wanting to “go home”? Despite liberals in the British Government do you really think they would accept colonisation and “tino rangitiratanga” (two yokes in one egg)? What I’m suggesting is that the liberals were naive “do gooders”. This was not your usual treaty situation as between neighbouring entities they were three months 6 months round trip away etc, etc.

    ” People sometimes ask me, ‘How do I see the Treaty. How should we think of the Treaty?’

    I’ve always said that the first article of the Treaty – the kawanatanga part – is very strong – much stronger than some Maori are prepared to concede, and the second article, which guarantees rangatiratanga is also very strong – much stronger than many Pakeha are prepared to concede.

    So how can we have these two strong articles sitting there? I’m tempted sometimes by this idea. In a way both sides gambled. The Crown gambled. Why was it prepared to sign up to Article II? Well, in a sense the Crown gambled that there would be assimilation. And therefore if there was assimilation, as you will see. Article II would become increasingly unimportant. On the other hand, Maori gambled. After all, why did Maori sign up for Article I – and by the way, don’t go for these readings that say Article I was only giving the Queen power over Pakeha. The most elementary reading of the Maori version of the first article shows that that is completely untenable. It gives the Queen te Kawanatanga katoa – all – of the kawanatanga; o ratou wenua – of their lands. Now, which lands is that? That’s the lands of the chiefs. That’s all it can be – have a look at the structure and I challenge anyone to show me an even faintly tenable reading which can dispute that it’s all the territory of New Zealand.

    So why did Maori sign up to that? Well, I think they gambled. I think they gambled that the demographics in New Zealand would stay, not exactly as they were in 1840, but would stay approximately such that there would be a preponderance of Maori and that the newcomers would be relatively few. I know there is a reference in the preamble to others coming, but I think the gamble was that if the demographics stayed favourable to Maori then this kawanatanga thing would be a really abstract sort of notion in the background. ”

    BULLSHIT, BACKLASH & BLEEDING HEARTS
    David Slack quoting Alex frame..

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

  48. Closed society bad (based on rules based on primitive beliefs etc…”we are tangata whenua” “they are not recognising man whenua”) open society the ideal to aim for.
    Google Karl Popper: The open society and it’s enemies (MT, KH, CD, TT etc etc)

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

  49. Strings Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    > Look at America, which has always had an ‘be assimilated or go away’ approach to cultural absorption. That seems to have worked (for a vast -99%- majority).

    I’ve heard it suggested that that has always been the attitude in the US towards every minority ethnic group except for black americans. There’s always been a stronger notion of the Black Americans as ‘seperate’ and ‘outsiders’, and it has shown through in the form of less upward mobility for black americans.

    Maybe that will change now that the US has a president of african descent (it’s worth noting that he is not from a black american cultural background – he is the child of a white american and a black african).

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

  50. “what then do your propose as an alternative?”

    I think we need to get back to the essence of why the treaty was signed and what went wrong in establishing the working relationship between Maori and pakeha.
    When I read the following, I was astonished at the wisdom and almost prophetic insight, of Ihaka, chief of Pukaki after the signing:

    “The former wars and jealousies disappeared, when the light of Christianity shone forth. My friends, the native chiefs, my desire is this: that religion, goodwill and peace should prevail throughout the land. if you approve accept these things. Be strong to suppress the evil, that confusion may not grow. If confusion should spring up in any particular part, let the chiefs hasten there, to put it down, and let the european chiefs do the same, who are of the same mind. Let them both go together for the purpose of putting down evil and confusion. My own desire is this, that peace may prevail throughtout the land for ever, and that our warfare should be directed towards the increase of schools. and the promotion of religion.”

    I would suggest that we have failed as a nation to put down the confusion and evil that chief Ihaka spoke of. What we need to do is get back to the positive aspects of the treaty and actually start to build a nation together, even if we are 150 years late.
    Insulting the intelligence of the chiefs who signed the treaty is not a good start.

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

  51. So you are saying we should have an “open society”, i.e. one with no rules?

    No thank you, that’s not my vision of an Utopia.

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

  52. Shunda barunda,

    I wonder who wrote that translation for the wise chief!

    Here’s my problem, we are cofused by the treaty and its two different versions. If you are suggesting we start again by writing a new treaty, I think you might be dreaming, the expectations and aspirations, as well as the composition of the two parties (‘pakeha’ are no longer exclusively historic subjects of ‘the crown’, and many who claim to be part of Maoridon have little Maori genetic material left in their blood).

    We could establish a constitution that takes as its basic foundation the concept that ‘all men and women are made equal’, and that all will be ‘have identical rights in the face of both law and government’. That though involves an agreement to rip up the treaty, which I don’t think will be acceptable to the necessary majority of Iwi.

    Taking the other route, of using the positive aspects of the treaty as a basis to start building a nation, is another road fraught with danger, as identification of the ‘positive aspects’ depends on your perspective.

    Another route I can think of is accepting that the two sides gambled (as suggested) and one lost (as always happens in a two horse race) which should leave the winner to take all. However, again I don’t expect a majority of Iwi to agree to that resolution.

    We cannot move forward by takeing a long step back and trying to fix something that was nevfer going to be fit for purpose no matter how it was spun. I have suggested a new start under Maori Tribal Tradition. What NEW start doyou suggest?

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

  53. Kahikatia

    You said “I’ve heard it suggested that that has always been the attitude in the US towards every minority ethnic group except for black Americans. There’s always been a stronger notion of the Black Americans as ’separate’ and ‘outsiders’, and it has shown through in the form of less upward mobility for black Americans.”

    The challenge I would make is that there would never have been a black American elected President if there was less upward mobility for black Americans. As with all evolutions, assimilation of black races into America took time, however, it was achieved and they have the same mobility options as everyone else there. There are black billionaires, black Mayors, black Senators, black Congressmen/women (isn’t it nice they don’t call them congresspeople!) and now a black President.

    Your point about him not being raised as a “black American” is mute, as it was the very acceptance of assimilation by his black father that led to him having the opportunities he has had. Ask any successful black American what their success is based on, and I can almost guarantee they will say, one way or another, it was accepting how the system works and using it for their own benefit. (I include all the hip-hop, rap, blues, and other genre black millionaire musicians in this challenge.)

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

  54. “Taking the other route, of using the positive aspects of the treaty as a basis to start building a nation, is another road fraught with danger, as identification of the ‘positive aspects’ depends on your perspective.”

    No it dosen’t, it requires historical accuracy and a commitment to the truth from both sides, as well as an honest acknowledgement of the mistakes that have been made.
    This requires people to put asside their political prejudice, and to refuse to judge the past by the standards of today. Something that politicians like Kevin Hague can’t do.

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

  55. So, like, slavery (for example) ought not to be judged, because it was acceptable at the time to those who practised it? Hope that’s not too dangerous for you.

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

  56. “So, like, slavery (for example) ought not to be judged, because it was acceptable at the time to those who practised it? Hope that’s not too dangerous for you.”

    No not at all, but understanding that the treaty was an honest attempt by the British empire NOT to repeat the mistakes of the past.
    The treaty of Waitangi is actually one of the most remarkable forward thinking documents of the 19th century and for this reason it could still be the basis of a strong foundation for NZ. In fact NZ more than any other country should be leading the way regarding racial reconciliation.
    Undermine the chiefs that signed, and the opportunity is lost.

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

  57. it requires historical accuracy and a commitment to the truth from both sides, as well as an honest acknowledgement of the mistakes that have been made.

    Therein lies the dilemma. Historical accuracy is impossible because it requires an understanding of the though processes of both sides to the treaty, which can never be accurately obtained.
    There is also the obstacle that I have never heard any representative of Maori suggest that they made any mistakes regarding the treaty and don’t know anyone that has. This makes correcting the mistakes a one-way street, as we are seeing now through the Waitangi Commission, which – because of human nature – causes resentment.

    As I have suggested earlier. Forget going backward, look forward and suggest how we can create one nation here in our land out of the two we have today.

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

  58. (Sorry, hit the wrong thing! To conclude)

    Using the Maori version of the Treaty, translated to a consensus by twelve ‘good men and true’ is not an option!

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

  59. On the subject of slavery (good point Kevin) … and this might throw the cat amongst the weka … but did you know that slavery persisted in NZ long after it was abolished in the British Empire and even long after the Treaty was signed ?

    In only ended on Rekohu, (the land of my ancestors) and otherwise known as Chatham Island, in 1863 !

    I agree with Metiria too by the way … Labour seem to be entirely missing the point on this issue. Surely it’s all about respecting the rights of the tangata whenua by enabling them to have at least some representation at the local level.

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

  60. iaroha

    How were there ‘rights’ conferred?
    Having representation is not the same as having three votes.

    Are you Maori, or Moriori? If the latter, are you tangata whenua?

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

  61. “Historical accuracy is impossible because it requires an understanding of the though processes of both sides to the treaty, which can never be accurately obtained.”

    Its not hard to read what they wrote down at the time, it is also not hard to understand the attitudes if the time they wrote it. We are not talking about the ancient past here.
    The situation was well understood by Maori at the time, and I think we need to show these people the respect they deserve, I for one think the Chiefs of the day were more intelligent than many give them credit for.

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

  62. Chief of Ngapuhi:

    ” Who knows the mind of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say let us have the English to protect us. When the governor came here, he brought with him the word of God by which we live; and it is through the teaching of that word that we are able to meet together to this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no sovereign but the Queen, and I shall never know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha.”

    Seems He had a reasonable understanding of the nature of the times to me.

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

  63. Its not hard to read what they wrote down at the time

    As Maori had no written language at the time, and all writing was done phonetically by settlers, there can be no written record of what those chiefs thought, only interpretations by others that may have been biased. Remember, only winners and survivors get to write history books.

    The situation was well understood by Maori at the time

    Which situation? The one that they were told was in the document, or the one that was there as far as the British were concerned?

    I for one think the Chiefs of the day were more intelligent than many give them credit for

    I am intelligent too. However, when visiting Sri Lanka, and dealing with a shopkeeper who only speaks Tamil, I am forced to depend on the ability of a translator, who often speaks halting English or good Sinhalese (a language I speak like a three year old!), and so am often at a great disadvantage. Given the wrong facts these chiefs would readily have made poor decisions that have nothing to do with their intelligence.

    We do need to respect Maori. They had a working society when the British arrived, and it was radically changed, many of their descendants would say not for the better, as a result of the British arrival. Let us give them FULL respect and allow their ways to rule their country. Why is this a bad thing to do?

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

  64. Do they need to even be conferred ? Surely in a just society the “rights” of the tangata whenua to “some” (note the key word there) representation are a given.

    Moriori … and yes that makes me tangata whenua of NZ but only because Rekohu is part of NZ. I tend to see myself more as rangata hunu (Moriori words for the same) of Rekohu.

    Moriori didn’t get to sign the Treaty (we were still enslaved) but we have been recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal … since taking our case to them in the 90s.

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

  65. Shunda barunda , your April 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm quote of the Chief of Ngapuhi sounds like exactly what the British would want to record him as saying!

    qed

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

  66. iaroha

    I believe you are the true tangata whenua, and that Maori were, in fact, invaders who colonised your country. This is what forms my understanding of the situation that pertains. (For example, I would encourage the Government to adopt the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights if it were recognised officially that Moriori are the indigenous people of New Zealand.

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

  67. Rights

    These are things granted by those in power to others. For instance by parents to children, by school boards to students, by Governments to citizens and others.

    There are countries that have granted the right to welfare and countries that haven’t. There are countries that have granted the right to free education and countries that haven’t. There are countries that have granted the right to have children and countries that have restricted that right to one child. There are countries that have granted the right to vote to all legal residents and countries that have restricted those rights to citizens.

    In the Treaty, Maori ceded governance to The Crown, and it has decided not to give Maori the right to voting representation on the Auckland Council, though it has granted that right with regard to Parliament. That is a decision that is The Crown’s alone to make, as a result of a mis-understood document that confers different rights between two parties depending on which language it is read in.

    I don’t agree with the status quo, I am disgusted by it because it is becoming apartheid in its basic nature. However, the legal situation is what it is, and so sadly no “right” of the tangata whenua to “some” representation is a given, it is withheld, by Her Majesty’s right of New Zealand.

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

  68. “Shunda barunda , your April 17th, 2009 at 2:05 pm quote of the Chief of Ngapuhi sounds like exactly what the British would want to record him as saying!”

    So either you believe Maori are not intelligent enough to comment like that, or that some conspiracy is afoot.
    This is historical fact, and the ease at which you brush it off is one of the root causes of much of the problems in this country.
    Perhaps if someone started telling the truth about our nations history things would start to come right.
    The left wing hand wringers have hijacked the history of this country to pursue their own political goals, I guess nothing is sacred to these people.

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

  69. Oh dear … that’s exactly why I made that “cat amongst the weka” comment (fearing it might spark that sort of response).

    I can’t agree with this reasoning Strings … and don’t personally know of any other Moriori that would.

    As I said before … we are the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands (Rekohu & Rangihaute) NOT of mainland NZ so to make that claim would be erroneous, laughable, and disrespectful to all the other tribes.

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

  70. Mate
    Who told this chief about the Americans and the French, and what did they tell them?

    Let’s face it, the Americans weren’t even out conquering, they don’t have that imperative in their makeup.

    The Brits ave always hated the frogs, who has at the time little interest in the Pacific!

    We (the POHMs) were bloody good at scaring the shit out of the natives, and had many ways to do it. Ask the Sri Lankans, who jumped from the frying pan into the fire!

    As I said, it sounds like exactly what the British would want to record him as saying!

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

  71. Ah. So my understanding is wrong. I can accept that.

    Where can I find an accurate history of the Moriori so as to correct my misunderstanding?

    (And thank you for putting me right. I have only met one Moriori and he was adamant that the Maori chased the Moriori off the land and they took refuge in the Chathams.)

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

  72. The open society is a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society.

    In Karl Popper’s definition, found in his two-volume book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he defines an “open society” as one which ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed, as opposed to a “closed society”, in which a bloody revolution or coup d’état is needed to change the leaders. He further describes an open society as one “in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions” as opposed to a “magical or tribal or collectivist society”.[1] In this context, tribalistic and collectivist societies do not distinguish between natural laws and social customs. Individuals are unlikely to challenge traditions they believe to have a sacred or magical basis. The beginnings of an open society are thus marked by a distinction between natural and man-made law, and an increase in personal responsibility and accountability for moral choices. (Note that Popper did not see this as incompatible with religious belief.[2]) Popper argues that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society.[

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society

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

  73. George Soros, a student of Karl Popper, has argued that the sophisticated use of powerful techniques of deception borrowed from modern advertising and cognitive science by political operatives such as Frank Luntz and Karl Rove casts doubt on Popper’s original conception of Open Society.[9] Because the electorates’ perception of reality can easily be manipulated, democratic political discourse does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of reality.[10] Soros argues that besides the requirements for the separation of powers, free speech, and free elections, we also need to make explicit a strong commitment to the pursuit of truth.[11] “Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception.”[12]

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

  74. “I agree with Metiria too by the way … Labour seem to be entirely missing the point on this issue. Surely it’s all about respecting the rights of the tangata whenua by enabling them to have at least some representation at the local level.”

    that’s typical closed society rhetoric: “tangata whenua” has a supernatural basis. We elect people with the best ideas and common values (we hope).

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

  75. Strings, people used to think that a seperate group of Moa hunters were here before the Moari but burial sites on the Wairau bar found the two cultures merged together. It was concluded that when moa etc were hunted to extinction (believed to be the fastest mass extinction by humans ever) Moari concentrated in the North Is where kumara (a sub tropical plant) grew better. The availability of food was a big factor in the size of the Maori population at the time of contact with Europeans.

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

  76. Strings … you are not alone in believing that story about Moriori (being chased off to the Chats by Maori) and I must say you are to be commended in seeking to learn the truth.

    To be honest, much of our Moriori history is (like our little faraway Islands of Rekohu (Chatham Island and Rangihaute … otherwise known as Rangiauria or Rangiaotea or Pitt Island) surrounded in mist … and there are differences in opinion even amongst our people as to where we actually came from originally.

    “Moriori- A People Re-Discovered” by Michael King (2nd edition for the most up to date info) is a good start … or for a potted on-line history :

    http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/MaoriNewZealanders/Moriori/1/en

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

  77. LibScott said “Kevin so when a Maori daughter of a wealthy lawyer family gets a publicly funded scholarship to study law, and then a similar scholarship from the public sector for a job and to do postgraduate study, whereas a non-Maori daughter of a poor…”

    Have I missed the reply?

    Iaroha said “Surely it’s all about respecting the rights of the tangata whenua by enabling them to have at least some representation at the local level.”
    I agree that maori, because of the ‘special’ place in NZ culture, should be represented at all levels. I wish there was a way to ensure representation of all kinds of jafas.

    The Rongotai college charter (20y ago) started with “We are a bi-cultural school…”. I would assume most schools have similar charters. This is an example of the underlying problem with things. Bi means 2. There were/are a lot more than 2 cultures at Rongotai. I’m still not sure what the other culture it was referring to was. Maybe NZ culture?

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

  78. “Who told this chief about the Americans and the French, and what did they tell them”
    Do you think Maori were ignorant of the world around them at the time of the treaty? There is abundant evidence that Maori were well aware of the global political climate at the time.

    “Let’s face it, the Americans weren’t even out conquering, they don’t have that imperative in their makeup.”

    Yes the American Indians did very well out of the colonisation of their land!!

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

  79. The battle between open society and closed society plays an important part in race relations in NZ. I.e the idea that primitive beliefs, rules, rituals and observances must be respected means that the holders of those practices have the right to be “highly” offended (which gives them a sort of power over the rest of us).

    “You just farted in front of my wife” “I’m sorry was it her turn first?”

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

  80. To be honest, much of our Moriori history is (like our little faraway Islands of Rekohu (Chatham Island and Rangihaute … otherwise known as Rangiauria or Rangiaotea or Pitt Island) surrounded in mist … and there are differences in opinion even amongst our people as to where we actually came from originally.

    My understanding is that the Waitangi Tribunal report concluded that the Moriori did not pre-date Maori, but are in fact another Maori tribe. A tribe treated particularly poorly, but still tangata whenua in the same sense.

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

  81. “My understanding is that the Waitangi Tribunal report concluded that the Moriori did not pre-date Maori”

    That dosen’t make it true.

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

  82. Yes you are partially right Valis re the Waitangi Tribunal Report.

    The Tribunal acknowledged that Moriori were the tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands of NZ, but the report also acknowledged that Ngati Mutunga (our invaders and captors) were the tangata whenua “who came later”.

    This to my mind is a curious concept as Ngati Mutunga only arrived on Rekohu on a hijacked British ship in 1835 (several years after the Pakeha sealers) and Moriori believe we arrived there sometime between 900 & 1500 AD. Some of us even have ancestors who claimed to have “sprung from the earth” on the island.

    Many Moriori were very disappointed with the Tribunal’s conclusion in this regard. We don’t agree with it (and never will). They say we are a “tribe of Maori”. We say we are a different people, related to Maori by our common ancestry (Polynesian).

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

  83. Great thread, thought provoking.
    A lot of this discussion is looking back to work out how we got to where we are today. The job at hand is to look forward.
    I have often stated my wish to see ‘Tangata Whenua’ be defined as ‘all born New Zealanders’. Looking at the past this would have not been correct, but looking forward I see it as entirely appropriate. The further forward I look the better it looks.
    With my definition most of the ‘us vs them’ of the current interpretation of the treaty vaporises. Race based anything disappears, cultural based aspirations still apply.
    The redefinition does not alter any resolution of historic Treaty claims, it does however redefine the future. For the better I say.
    Who’s got a better suggestion?

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

  84. I like what you’re saying there samiam.
    I think Maori and Pakeha have a huge amount to offer each other, I can personally identify with a number of Maori cultural ways that I think would be of benefit to all of us.
    It can’t be an “us and them” attitude as you have said.

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

  85. Samiam,
    But, as i normally refain from arguing, defining all born New Zealanders as tangata whenua has exactly the same implications as saying it counts for nothing as the entire point of the concepts use in present times, apart from defining an imaginary reationship to the land, is to seperate maori from non-maori; to provide a grounds for arguements that maori deserve to be ‘more equal’.
    By defining tangata whenua as all born New Zealanders you are changing the official definition but not the definition in the minds of the maori whom desire such positive discrimination, and it is with them that the whole problem rests in that it is them whom wish a status different to that which pakeha desire. If that desire did not exist there would be no reason at all for this conversation.
    Furthermore, in legislation and contractual agreements, unless otherwise defined, words and terms mean the common meaning at that point in time; not now or after we modify it.

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

  86. # iaroha Says:
    April 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    > The Tribunal acknowledged that Moriori were the tangata whenua of the Chatham Islands of NZ, but the report also acknowledged that Ngati Mutunga (our invaders and captors) were the tangata whenua “who came later”.

    Does this also happen to Maori iwi whose rohe was invaded by other iwi shortly before the treaty was signed?

    > Many Moriori were very disappointed with the Tribunal’s conclusion in this regard. We don’t agree with it (and never will). They say we are a “tribe of Maori”. We say we are a different people, related to Maori by our common ancestry (Polynesian).

    Is the Waitangi Tribunal even qualified to make judgements like that?

    And potentially it could even be a matter of semantics. Some of my ancestors were Normans who left Normandy in France in the 1800s. Are they of the same people or a different people to descendants of the Normans who settled in southern England after the Norman Conquest? I think it’s a matter of definition, though I suspect they considered they were a different people.

    It would be interesting to do a genetic analysis to see how closely related Maori and Moriori were (I say ‘were’ rather than ‘are’, because I understand all surviving Moriori have some Maori ancestry, making you more closely related). The fact that modern moriori all have maori ancestry wouldn’t make it impossible to test – it would be a matter of comparing y-chromosomes of men who are of moriori ancestry down an all-male line with those who are of maori ancestry down an all-male line, and comparing mitochondrial DNA of women who are of moriori ancestry down an all-female line with those who are of maori ancestry down an all-female line.

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

  87. Kahikatea … yes I understood that genetic testing re racial characteristics could only be accurately assessed through the female line.

    Recall one of my cousins having a conversation with a visiting American geneticist who was enthralled by her ancestry and keen to follow up … until she told him that our connection was through Grandpa.

    All the other Moriori families I know of (EXCEPT ours) do have Maori ancestry too. I’ve often thought it would be interesting to do the analysis and there is a branch of our family that has a complete female line (back to our ancient Moriori ancestor).

    > “Is the Waitangi Tribunal even qualified to make judgements like that ?<

    Well to be fair to the process … it was in the context of our Treaty Settlement. A case was also brought to the Tribunal by Ngati Mutunga in the 90s and reported on at the same time. The Tribunal acknowledged that NM had historically been unfairly treated by the Crown on the mainland (and this was seen as a motivater for their “flight” to Rekohu in 1835).

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

  88. iaroha

    Thanks for the pointer – I ordered the book yesterday and look forward to reading it.

    Shunda barunda said

    “Do you think Maori were ignorant of the world around them at the time of the treaty? There is abundant evidence that Maori were well aware of the global political climate at the time”.

    What absolute gobbledygook! There wasn’t a nice easy news service for them to use to follow world events, their knowledge was limited to what the sailors who visited told the people they spoke to and how that was passed down to them.

    And more . . . .
    “Let’s face it, the Americans weren’t even out conquering, they don’t have that imperative in their makeup.”
    Yes the American Indians did very well out of the colonisation of their land!!

    Exactly! In the early 1800s the “Americans’ were so busy conquering their own continent,they didn’t have time or inclination to pop down to the bottom of the Pacific and have a go at colonising New Zealand! You are making my point for me rather than opposing it – or just trying to obfuscate the point through more gobbledygook?

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

  89. Onya Strings … I’m impressed !

    The earlier edition of the book won a national book award (I think it was Watties book of the Year 1989). The revised one has the same info … with some recent history added.

    After reading it, you should be very knowledgeable about Moriori … and our true place in NZ history.

    me rongo (with peace),
    iaroha

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

  90. iaroha

    what can I say, I’m old enough to have acquired a little (very little my wife would say,) wisdom. That is ‘ignorance is bliss, but understanding is ecstasy’.

    I look forward to a good read.

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

  91. Good one Strings … I love it (not to be confused with those naughty/nasty ? little pills of course).

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

  92. “Popper’s theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. An open society is associated with cultural and religious Pluralism . Open society is always open to improvement because knowledge is never completed but always ongoing. Claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought. In contrast, in an open society each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.[7] Democracies are examples of the “open society”, whereas totalitarian dictatorships, theocracy, and autocratic monarchies are examples of the “closed society”.” [Wikipaedia "Open Society]

    “Tangata whenua respect their customary rights to water as the exercise of tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over waterways” said Te Ururoa Flavell, Treaty spokesperson for the Maori Party.

    “The Waitangi Tribunal stated in both the Whanganui Report and the Mohaka River Report that water is a taonga” said Mr Flavell. “As such, Maori customary title to water belongs to iwi and hapu, according to tikanga Maori”.

    “It is particularly ironic that on this day, Indigenous World Water Day, the Crown is willing to step up the ante by basically saying they will extinguish customary title” said Mr Flavell.

    “The writing is on the wall. Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the human rights laws and standards that were breached with the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, will now be breached in the case of water”.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0703/S00461.htm

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

  93. iaroha

    Never the little pills! (though I’m getting to the age where the blue ones might start to come in handy!)

    I have to admit you have me intrigued now, and so the reading anticipation is a growing glow in my mind.

    jh

    Water is the essence of life; take away the water from a human being and you are left with a few kilos of dust. Water is also ubiquitous, wherever you go in the world, even deep in vast deserts, there is water; perhaps in a wadi, perhaps in a cactus, perhaps in a hidden canyon (my favourite swimming pool was in a cave in the Saudi desert 30 k from the nearest city – Riyadh.

    To lay claim to water is to claim omnipotence. For Flavel to say that “Tangata whenua respect their customary rights to water as the exercise of tino rangatiratanga” is abhorrent to me, and sets a stage for even deeper resentment of the apartheid that so many self-styled ‘leaders’ of Maoridom are espousing.

    It is time for all New Zealanders, irrespective of their blood line, to be declared equal. It is time for the Treaty to reach its expiry date. It is time for Te Pakeha to be recognised as a tribe with equal rights to all others.

    It is also time for you to stop showing your expertise in ‘cut and paste’ technology, and bring yourself into adulthood with some original thought.

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

  94. >>self-styled ‘leaders’ of Maoridom are espousing

    Unless they pull their heads in, I can’t see this going anywhere pleasant.
    It’s time we re-asserted we are all equal and put the treaty to rest.

    Incrementalism must now be fought at every turn. There’s no use being reasonable, it is only leading us to racial segregation.

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

  95. iaroha – one of the morehu rangata hunu ki Rekohu was taken with others to the Auckland Islands and on the return voyage escaped onto Rakiura then on to Oraka (Colac Bay ) where she married a local Maori man and raised a family. Do you know anything of that ‘adventure’?

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

  96. I think we are faced with a dilemma: we respect Maori culture but that doesn’t mean the beliefs of the past have any place in modern society. Once we accept tikanga (a manifestation of the closed society) they have an open cheque to define reality as they like eg “we can’t live in your culture”. To put it another way biculturalism has created a marriage between the open society and the closed society and that could lead to problems down stream.

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

  97. Culture is a living thing, the traditional maori culture so often promoted for tourism and in schools is no longer maori culture; it is only the rememberance of a romantic few. Real and current maori culture is better found in South Auckland or other places where large communities of maori have conglomerated. Just as pakeha culture is the living and breathing now of our society rather than the renaissance that is a part of our cultural history, the maori culture of now, so similar in most ways to pakeha culture, is the true maori culture; not the ‘traditional’ culture so apprased. The times have changed, the vast majority of maori spirituality is now used only to try and grasp the straws of the past and to get some extra money from local and national governments, it is maori culture no more; move on.

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

  98. Move on Metiria, Sue? Catherine, Nandor, Valis, Greenfly, Eredwen, Toad, Mark.

    The policy you support implies you support a separate reality; particularily the notion that people who identify as Maori (through ancestral connection) have spiritual connection with the land and by that (and by teaching) have advanced conservation ethics and skills as well as an (impartial) guardianship role.
    To put that differently if i skim your policy and statements I bet I will find plenty of evidence that there is implied or overt support for belief in a super natural world, affecting policy, which extends over a shared resource.

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

  99. jh; I would say you are dealing with people who have done a lot of study – that you mis-understand and/or disagree (or can’t see) is normal and to be expected. It’s no one else’s place to tell you to raise your sights – if you think it fair then I would be pleased for you; – try for instance, to understand the Human Notion of Faith; – have a read of the Koran, the Bible, the Tao and Talmud – maybe you don’t give a shizen – only you will know.

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

  100. that doesn’t mean the beliefs of the past have any place in modern society.
    That’s funny jh. Are our pakeha beliefs not from the past? How do we manage that special trick?

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

  101. the Pope has done a lot of study but he sees humans as the immortal creation of a deity> the man behind the BIG BANG!! > God!

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

  102. iaroha

    What is the book? I can’t spot the recommendation in the thread.

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

  103. “That’s funny jh. Are our pakeha beliefs not from the past? How do we manage that special trick?”

    Yes but it is only the influence of the churches that lets religion affects government policy, otherwise we strive for secularism. Indigenous ancestral links are a different kettle of fish as they were prior occupants of our islands and claim “mana whenua” over everything. Mana whenua is / was something held if you slayed and ate an enemy you took on their mana.

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

  104. Greens need to choose : Open society/ Closed Society
    Which will it be ?
    Hmmmmmm ?

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

  105. Open society/Closed Society jh – and never the twain shall meet?
    Quite a black and white view, that one.
    jh said: they have an open cheque to define reality as they like
    Are you mistrustful and fearful of Maori, jh?

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

  106. Move on Metiria, Sue? Catherine, Nandor, Valis, Greenfly, Eredwen, Toad, Mark.

    We’re not the issue. In essence, we feel Te Tiriti guarantees Maori self determination. What this means in the modern context may not be clear, but what is clear to us is that Maori must be involved in the discussion without preconditions – otherwise we deny self determination from the start and will get no where. So unless you intend to impose your view on Maori by force, you need to be prepared to engage genuinely. So don’t argue with a bunch of pakeha, take your ideas to Maori. Who knows, they may like them.

    The rest of your post bears no resemblance to my reality.

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

  107. “Are you mistrustful and fearful of Maori”

    No, just silly liberals with rampant guilty white syndrome.

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

  108. Valis,
    Well actually the issue is that there are people whom desire as situation different to the status quo, since you, much of the green party, and a sub-section of the maori population desire this it is actually this group that is the issue. lol. But thats just useful semantics.

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

  109. Valis said
    “we feel Te Tiriti guarantees Maori self determination”.

    No problem, they can go ahead and self determine – what it does not guarantee is that I, and the rest of Te Pakeha tribe, have to pay for it! Nor that we have to cede part of The Crown’s right to Govern as part of Maori self determination.

    Abandon the treaty all you who dwell here, and we can create a wonderful land of opportunity.

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

  110. Self determination is like two governments in one geographical area and is expressed as in wanting Maori tikanga in prisons or schools or the health system: it may work but for a different reason such as making feel important or extra care and attention. The danger is that this is used by radicals becoming indoctrination centers. I would not be surprised if (in some cases) “the Pakeha stole our land” is not used as justification for theft and i can recall a couple of cases of pakeha being assaulted (unprovoked) inbroad daylight.

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

  111. RadioNZ News:
    A hui in Christchurch has been told the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004 should be repealed.

    A panel is hearing submissions at a series of hui and public meetings as part of a Government review of the act.

    Speaking on behalf of Ngai Tahu, Tim Rochford told the panel on Tuesday that the act is the most significant attack on Maori property rights in his lifetime.

    He also said it was a stain on the conscience of the nation.

    The panel will continue to hear submissions in April and May and will report to the Government by the end of June.
    ……………………..
    The Greens justify their stance on the Foreshore and Seabed by either “it wont be much” (a bay here and there) or the role of Maori as kaitiaki…. a semi- metaphysical relationship.

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

  112. LOL, i seem to remember just such a justification used severa years ago, “how can our children help but resort to crime when everytihng they see around them was stoen from them” or something along those lines. Cant remmember who it was exactly, was a short fat maori female, I think it may have been tariana turia.

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

  113. Big Bruv – 2 questions:
    1. Are you suppportive of ‘the National and even the Act party for their plans’ to export live sheep?
    2. Are you running from this question?

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

  114. Greenfly :

    iaroha – one of the morehu rangata hunu ki Rekohu was taken with others to the Auckland Islands and on the return voyage escaped onto Rakiura then on to Oraka (Colac Bay ) where she married a local Maori man and raised a family. Do you know anything of that ‘adventure’?

    My turn to be intrigued. Why do you ask ?

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

  115. Blue Peter :

    >What is the book? I can’t spot the recommendation in the thread.<

    “Moriori- A People Re-Discovered” by Michael King.

    Revised edition has more recent history added. The earlier edition won Watties Book of the Year Award when it was first published (1989).

    Me rongo (with peace)
    iaroha

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

  116. iaroha – Tena koe
    Not a trick question! I’m familiar with the Michael King’s book and other associated readings and know people from the Oraka area (Te Takutai o te Titi) and have kept an eye out for nga uri o taua wahine but haven’t knowingly met any yet. I wondered if you knew.
    Kia ngawari koe

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

  117. Greenfly

    No.
    No.

    That is how you answer a question Greenfly, you should try it instead of your silly hit and run crap you normally post over at farrars place.

    BTW, where have you been all week?

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

  118. >>Moriori- A People Re-Discovered” by Michael King

    Thanks. I’ll also have a read…..

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

  119. Big Bro – loveley to be talking with you again. Where have I been for the past week? Right here, mostly :-)

    What’s your opinion about the live sheep decision Big Bro? Are you happy that it’s to be begun again? I thought you cared for the welfare of animals? Have you had a change of heart? Do you condone the practice?
    It concerns me deeply, that National and Act have given this trade the go ahead and that you seem to approve. Hope I’m wrong. Please answer Big Bro. I regard your opinion on this matter as important.

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

  120. Greenfly … sorry I wasn’t implying it was a trick question … just had a silly thought you might be someone I knew who was playing with me. I only say this because the story you mention has some striking similarities to my own hunau history (if you were to substitute Black American/Native American man for the Maori man and Cloudy Bay for Colac Bay).

    Blue Peter … must be time I rang the publishers and asked for a commission ! Good one anyway. Hope you find it edifying.

    Me rongo
    iaroha

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

  121. Well actually the issue is that there are people whom desire as situation different to the status quo, since you, much of the green party, and a sub-section of the maori population desire this it is actually this group that is the issue. lol. But thats just useful semantics.

    My point is that if you managed to win over the Green Party to your point of view, you won’t haven’t achieved very much because the real issue is what Maori think. Go talk to them. If you win them over, you won’t have to worry about us because we simply wouldn’t argue with the outcome.

    This is how progress would be made, but you have to be brave and go into the process without predetermined outcomes in mind. Maori are neither stupid nor impractical. They do not think they can turn back the clock. Give it a go.

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

  122. “…the real issue is what Maori think. Go talk to them. If you win them over, you won’t have to worry about us because we simply wouldn’t argue with the outcome.”

    Gee I had the distinct impression you had a position?

    “The left in New Zealand has had little to say about this debate, but where it have made pronouncements this has often taken the usual unthinking line of supporting any Maori struggle, regardless of its merits. Peace groups, far-left organisations, and parties like the Greens have come out against government moves to nationalise the foreshore and seabed.

    Interestingly, the ACT party also backs the right of Maori to fight for beach ownership in court, saying government proposals amount to ‘property seizure’. ACT has actually been quite sympathetic to Maori claims on the foreshore in so far as they enmesh Maori in claims on the basis of essentially private property rights. ACT sometimes plays for the redneck rural vote, but their urban liberal upper and middle class white vote is also quite happy with the type of Maori claims that help draw some Maori into business and private property thinking. Likewise the Business Roundtable also supports Maori making foreshore claims, arguing that property rights need to be protected and also that Maori should receive just and fair compensation if their property rights are exhausted by the state.

    It has to be asked whether the bulk of Maori would actually be any better off with iwi ownership of the foreshore. After all, the call for iwi ownership of the foreshore is not a call for resources to be given to Maori in state houses in Porirua and Wainoni. In fact it is a further corporatisation of land, which is what has happened with Ngai Tahu land ownership in the South Island. Today’s iwi are more like capitalist business enterprises than they are like the iwi of classical Maori society before capitalism. Ngai Tahu, for instance, is the biggest corporate land-owner in the South Island with hundreds of millions of dollars of assets, a chunk of which is milked off by its executives and consultants. Meanwhile, the average Maori income in the South island is about $14,000 per year, and the statistics for Maori continue to worsen (as do those for working class pakeha). There therefore seems no progressive reason why this multi-million dollar outfit should get the foreshore as well to add to their property portfolio.

    http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2003/12/nationalise_the.html

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

  123. Gee I had the distinct impression you had a position?

    Yes, I described it at 2:01.

    The left in New Zealand has had little to say about this debate, but where it have made pronouncements this has often taken the usual unthinking line of supporting any Maori struggle, regardless of its merits.

    That’s a good example of the sort of stupid sweeping statement that Bryce is known for when he can’t figure out what’s really going on.

    It has to be asked whether the bulk of Maori would actually be any better off with iwi ownership of the foreshore.

    Does it? Perhaps as an academic exercise, but Maori spoke quite uniquely in modern times with a single voice on this issue. That Bryce can’t fathom why it was so important to Maori says more about his lack of historical understanding than anything else.

    In fact it is a further corporatisation of land, which is what has happened with Ngai Tahu land ownership in the South Island.

    That was only one possible outcome and not at all inevitable. It was Labour’s excuse for nationalising the F&S for sure. The Green solution to that problem was to make a simple change to the Maori Land Court Act to remove the possibility that freehold title could be granted over the F&S, leaving only customary rights to be won. This is exactly what Maori said they wanted. Labour wouldn’t go for it partly because they had panicked in an environment where Don Brash was on a Maori bashing campaign and Labour felt it had to keep up, but also because they were worried about Maori wanting a piece of the action regarding any natural resources that might be discovered under the sea.

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

  124. Ah – so……spiritually stunted then ! – a Pagan as it were.
    Ignoring whole dimensions of collective thought won’t lead anywhere profound. And profound is the problem you face.

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

  125. Mark Says:
    April 22nd, 2009 at 5:26 am

    “Ah – so……spiritually stunted then ! ”

    Unfortunately only those with the inner tribal knowlege know whether anything to do with the spirit world is right or wrong.

    Vallis
    “The Green solution to that problem was to make a simple change to the Maori Land Court Act to remove the possibility that freehold title could be granted over the F&S, leaving only customary rights to be won. This is exactly what Maori said they wanted.”

    Proffessor Margaret Mutu asserted that her iwi, Northland’s Ngati Kahu, has full unrestricted ownership of all foreshore and seabed within her tribal boundaries with sole powers to regulate, manage and control all activities,” Mr Shirley said.

    “She claimed that this power of ownership extends to Tahiti, the ancient homeland of Hawaiki.
    __
    “I have been accused of threatening civil war,” said Margaret Mutu, a prominent Maori academic.

    “But I was speaking on behalf of my tribe,” she continued. “It is a statement of the depth of our feeling. The government wants to take our land.”
    __

    Bryce Edward mentions a study by Waikato University that shows (I think) only 43% of Maori support Maori ownership of foreshore and seabed (can look it up later)

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

  126. Mark says :

    “Ah – so……spiritually stunted then ! – a Pagan as it were.
    Ignoring whole dimensions of collective thought won’t lead anywhere profound. And profound is the problem you face.”

    Pagans spiritually stunted ? I think not. Indeed to believe so is to ignore whole dimensions of collective thought A classic symptom of “closed – mindedness.”

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

  127. Well iaroha – I’m asking jh a question on the subject, but he only contributes when he wants to – almost like strategic interference if you will – I realize Pagans have spiritual values and reserve what I think of that (I know several Pagans very well) – would Godless B**tard convey my meaning any clearer? Spiritually Defunct perhaps? Please take your pick.

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

  128. Whoops – unfair again – there he is…millions are in touch with their Spiritual selves – it’s no ‘secret knowledge’. I pray you find yourself in more than material context sometime
    regards etc

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

  129. LOL. Thanks for the clarification Mark. That’s a profound relief.

    Me rongo
    iaroha

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

  130. Proffessor Margaret Mutu asserted that her iwi, Northland’s Ngati Kahu, has full unrestricted ownership of all foreshore and seabed within her tribal boundaries with sole powers to regulate, manage and control all activities,” Mr Shirley said.

    So? There will always be those who make extreme statements.

    “But I was speaking on behalf of my tribe,” she continued. “It is a statement of the depth of our feeling. The government wants to take our land.”

    So she was making a point. I wonder what others response would be to a government that wanted their land.

    Bryce Edward mentions a study by Waikato University that shows (I think) only 43% of Maori support Maori ownership of foreshore and seabed (can look it up later)

    They were talking about freehold ownership? That would fit fine with our proposed solution to the F&S problem then.

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

  131. Valis,

    Unfortunately , there are amany instances where Maori have already blocked public access to the beaches. notably in Northland, Raglan, and East Coast areas.

    I think you are taking the easy way out by saying that extremist statements dont count. They do count and action by some Iwi to close beaches for public access will continue.

    I can see a very ugly situation happening unless the Foreshore & Seabed issue is handled correctly by both sides of the treaty.

    Maori must get their heads around that the foreshore and seabed is for ALL New Zealanders. No how this resource is protected we can discuss, but one cannot divert attention away from the fact that access is being denied now, and that needs to stop.

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

  132. I think you are taking the easy way out by saying that extremist statements dont count.

    I mean this in the context that one shouldn’t be derailed from seeking the right solution by a minority who make extreme statements. That would be the tail wagging the dog, no?

    They do count and action by some Iwi to close beaches for public access will continue.

    These actions also have a context, that of the govt having denied Maori access to the courts to press a legitimate case. No doubt there will always be some who will take such action no matter how the issue is settled, but it is also worth considering what action we might expect from someone who feels ropatu has occurred. It is worth thinking about their point of view. What would you do if you felt so aggrieved?

    I can see a very ugly situation happening unless the Foreshore & Seabed issue is handled correctly by both sides of the treaty.

    We agree fully! I just think what Labour did has made it worse.

    Maori must get their heads around that the foreshore and seabed is for ALL New Zealanders.

    Have you discussed this with any Maori? What did they say?

    No how this resource is protected we can discuss, but one cannot divert attention away from the fact that access is being denied now, and that needs to stop.

    The crux of the argument is how best to go about achieving your goal. I’ve been suggesting in this thread that the approach thus far, ignoring the concerns of Maori and legislating to suit Pakeha, is counterproductive.

    Even in Northern Ireland, progress was only made when Britain finally admitted the Republicans has legitimate grievances. What might the legitimate grievances of Maori be and how would you address them?

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

  133. Poll finds foreshore and seabed policy fair

    6 February 2005Media Statement
    Foreshore and seabed policy strikes right balance

    Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen today released polling data showing a clear majority of all New Zealanders and a plurality of Maori believe the Foreshore and Seabed Act is fair.

    The Act removes the possibility of gaining customary title but provides that any group which would have been able to demonstrate such a claim is entitled to redress and that the government has a duty to negotiate that in good faith.

    “The UMR Research result, based on a representative sample of 750 people, shows 56 per cent consider the legislation strikes a balance between the rights of Maori and those of the general population,” Dr Cullen said.

    “Among Maori this was also the most commonly held view with 45 percent support,” he said although adding that the Maori sub-sample was very small comprising only 65 people.

    Dr Cullen quoted the poll in a Waitangi Day speech on the meaning of the Treaty.

    He said the Treaty was a living document which provided an orderly framework for the settlement of historical grievances and the resolution of ongoing debates about the rights of Maori as the original inhabitants and owners of the land.

    People worried that the grievance settlement process would go on forever. It would not but it would take some years yet as settlements were complex and to rush them was to risk getting them wrong.

    “What is reasonable is to put a time limit on the lodging of claims so that people can see there is an end point,” he said.

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/poll+finds+foreshore+and+seabed+policy+fair

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

  134. Valis Says:
    April 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    “So? There will always be those who make extreme statements.”

    Unfortunately extremists tend to be over achievers in politics. The Green party is a case in point

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

  135. Valis,

    Have you discussed this with any Maori? What did they say?

    Yes and were told in no uncertain terms to f*** off, it was their beach and they had the right to tell people not to use it.

    It will get ugly if that continious.

    I’ve been suggesting in this thread that the approach thus far, ignoring the concerns of Maori and legislating to suit Pakeha, is counterproductive.

    Similarly Maori ignoring the concerns of Pakeha and other immigrant groups are also counterproductive.

    Even in Northern Ireland, progress was only made when Britain finally admitted the Republicans has legitimate grievances.

    Have we not been settling treaty grievances for the last 100 years? How much admitting there are legitimate grievances do you or Maori need? Or are the guilt trips to continue forever?

    how would you address them?

    Scrapping the treaty of Waitiangwe and instituting a process for a New Zealand constitution where ALL races have input. Something Nandor was keen to pursue.

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

  136. jh – Green MPs are ‘overachievers’? That’s kinda flattering. I’ve mostly thought of them as ‘high achievers’.

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

  137. 6 February 2005Media Statement
    Foreshore and seabed policy strikes right balance

    LOL, Labour admitted today they got it wrong.

    Yes and were told in no uncertain terms to f*** off, it was their beach and they had the right to tell people not to use it.

    Hmmm, that was predictable? I suggest trying people who aren’t staging a protest at the moment you’re engaging with them.

    Have we not been settling treaty grievances for the last 100 years? How much admitting there are legitimate grievances do you or Maori need? Or are the guilt trips to continue forever?

    Two things are sure to make the pain last longer, creating new grievances and forcing the settlement of all grievances by an arbitrary date.

    Scrapping the treaty of Waitiangwe and instituting a process for a New Zealand constitution where ALL races have input. Something Nandor was keen to pursue.

    I assure you Nandor wasn’t advocating scraping the treaty.

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

  138. I assure you Nandor wasn’t advocating scraping the treaty.

    Unfortunately I dont have time to find the post and Nandors contribution but we discussed it along those lines.

    Two things are sure to make the pain last longer, creating new grievances and forcing the settlement of all grievances by an arbitrary date.

    New grievances? Or gravy train?

    I get a real feeling from the populace that they are so over the Maoru treaty gravy train and the government is acting upon those sentiments.

    Hmmm, that was predictable? I suggest trying people who aren’t staging a protest at the moment you’re engaging with them.

    Not many non protesting Maori left. Like I said it could get ugly when 85% decide enough is enough.

    I guess you will pick up on that and have a glib remark.

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

  139. If we come come at the foreshore issue from the correct perspective that we are all immigrants and that no-one has ever owned any foreshore (or ever will), then there is no grievance, no court case, no redress, no us vs them. Then we can all get on with protecting it for all.
    The Green party, of all groups, should be advocating for such a position.

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

  140. “The Green solution to that problem was to make a simple change to the Maori Land Court Act to remove the possibility that freehold title could be granted over the F&S, leaving only customary rights to be won. This is exactly what Maori said they wanted.”

    what about your comminment to the Maori version of Te tiritti? That guarantees aboriginal title whether in continuous use or not.

    The only difference between freehold title and customery title is private ownership versus group ownership (essentially)

    “Hapu and iwi, in many cases stripped of their resources by land confiscations and trickery see no reason why title to their traditional coastal areas should also be legislated away. They want to exercise their kaitiakitanga responsibilities, caring for the area that provides much of their food and defines their place in the world. They want their decision-making rights to be unimpeded by uncertainties over entitlements. With regard to public access, instances where they have tried to deny access to others for recreational use are rare indeed and usually the product of some other dispute. Examples of generally open public access include Lake Taupo where the lake bed is already owned by Tu Wharetoa. There we are more likely to encounter private property restrictions on access than customary restrictions.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/18406

    Rather rose coloured no? Not at all like Zimbawe or Uganda or Rwanda or Fiji
    our Maori are models of saintliness.

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

  141. Waikato Tainui Views

    Tainui is the past. Tainui is the present. Tainui is the future. In accordance with Maaori Customary Law and as acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence 1839, Tainui is tangata whenua.

    Waikato Tainui is committed to cleaning up the environment and considers that a regional coastal plan is fundamental to that process. It also considers that the tangata whenua perspective is integral to, and should be incorporated in, the Plan.

    Ownership of the west coast fish, harbours and water systems within the Region under study is an issue which forms the basis of tangata whenua concerns with respect to planning processes.

    The tangata whenua consider that the Treaty of Waitangi recognised and guaranteed their exclusive rights to the fisheries of the Region under study. It is also their view that through the Declaration of Independence, the rights, ownership, management and use of the natural resources within the Region, which are the subject of the Regional Coastal Plan, had already been clearly established.
    Huakina Development Trust state that the Manawhenua groups of Waikato Tainui within the Region which is the subject of the Regional Coastal Plan are the Kaitiaki of the area and the traditional fisheries of Tainui.

    The Waikato Tainui position is that they have ‘never objected to sharing the waterways or its fisheries and its use for recreation, however, Waikato Tainui do object to the abuse of such a resource.’ Waikato Tainui believe that they must fulfil their Kaitiaki responsibilities to ensure the preservation and wise use of natural resources.

    They believe that when the performance of their duty as Kaitiaki is interfered with, the well being of their people, both spiritually and physically, is at risk. Their mana is determined not only by their feats, their standing in their community and the ability to cater for visitors, but also by the quality of the taonga they pass to their descendants. Such taonga are the natural resources within the area subject to the Regional Coastal Plan.

    The Maaori world is a combination of spiritual, cultural and physical balances intricately woven, which acknowledges the significance of where they came from, the sacredness of water and their intimate kin relationship to all entities within the environment. Maaori culture does not separate the land from the surrounding elements of air, water, minerals, flora or fauna. The Region under study is embodied in tangata whenua tradition, sacred areas and burial grounds and these things are a constant reminder of Maaori historical, cultural and spiritual values.

    According to Maaori tradition, even water has a mauri. The mauri is the force that ensures within a physical entity such as the sea, harbours, rivers, lakes and estuaries including land, that all species that it accommodates will have continual life. The mauri should not be interrupted or desecrated. However, if it is, whatever it accommodates is at risk.

    The tangata whenua believe that disasters or natural phenomena can not harm the mauri, only that instigated by people, merely by the use of artificial components such as chemicals. The mauri is defenceless against components that are not part of the natural environment. The mauri of waters and the wairua of the tangata whenua have the same origin. Therefore when the mauri is harmed, so too is the spirit of the tangata whenua.
    http://www.ew.govt.nz/policy-and-plans/regional-coastal-plan/regional-coastal-plan/2-Tangata-Whenua-Perspective/21-Tangata-Whenua-Relationship-with-Natural-and-Physical-Resources/

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

  142. Gerrit,

    Unfortunately I dont have time to find the post and Nandors contribution but we discussed it along those lines.

    OK, but I’ll bet it was on the proviso that Maori agreed then.

    New grievances? Or gravy train?

    Its hard to see the F&S act as anything but the creation of a new grievance. If someone took away your access to the courts, you would feel aggrieved indeed.

    I get a real feeling from the populace that they are so over the Maoru treaty gravy train and the government is acting upon those sentiments.

    Yes, as were Labour, but by treating it as such, they guarantee it will be prolonged. This “gravy train” has produced settlements worth about 1% of the value of the claims. Perhaps Maori need new lawyers.

    I guess you will pick up on that and have a glib remark.

    Very helpful in serious debates, I’m sure.

    If we come come at the foreshore issue from the correct perspective that we are all immigrants and that no-one has ever owned any foreshore (or ever will), then there is no grievance, no court case, no redress, no us vs them. Then we can all get on with protecting it for all.

    Meanwhile, sam, in the real world where not all share the same view, we are left with negotiation.

    jh,

    what about your comminment to the Maori version of Te tiritti? That guarantees aboriginal title whether in continuous use or not.

    Our solution was in line with what Maori were seeking so no worries.

    The only difference between freehold title and customery title is private ownership versus group ownership (essentially)

    Which is a huge difference in terms of what can be done with the land.

    Rather rose coloured no? Not at all like Zimbawe or Uganda or Rwanda or Fiji

    Yup, not at all like those places.

    our Maori are models of saintliness.

    One can respect another’s rights regardless of how saintly they are.

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

  143. Valis says:
    Two things are sure to make the pain last longer, creating new grievances and forcing the settlement of all grievances by an arbitrary date

    Tarian Turia : Tribes Treaty Claims 1.5% of what was taken. Settlements can’t be full and final.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/2008/09/05/waatea_news

    Guardianship of foreshore ‘not good enough’
    STUFF 02 August 2003
    Offering iwi guardianship in a bid to settle ownership of the seabed and foreshore would not be good enough, Te Tau Ihu iwi spokesman John
    Mitchell says.

    Judge: Treaty settlements not enough
    Oct 27, 2004 8:43 AM

    The chief judge of the Maori Land Court says Treaty of Waitangi settlements need to be five times the size they are now, if they are to address Maori poverty in the short term.

    Judge Joe Williams was speaking at a session on Treaties with Indigenous Peoples at the International Bar Association Conference in Auckland.

    He says settlements are too small to adequately address disparities between Maori and Pakeha in areas such as health and economics.

    Margaret Mutu of Ngati Kahu agrees with Williams.

    She says the sums are nowhere near the original value of the land, or the usual compensation paid for loss of land.
    Mutu says the loss of the economic base of land is responsible for poor Maori showing in health, welfare and crime statistics.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_politics_story_skin/455276?format=html

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

  144. jh,

    There is not enough money or land in New Zealand to pay all those claims so I dont know what Maori are going to settle for.

    I guess they will continue to claim ad infinitum until such time as the remaining 85% o us Tauiwi say enough.

    And yes, I can see bloodshed in this matter.

    Simply because whatever settlement is to be reached it wont be enough for Maori.

    Biggest problem I see is a lack of willingness by Maori to acknowledge that the times have moved from when the treaty was signed and that they need to face up to some really unpleasant and harsh realities.

    There is not enough money or land to fix the grievances and that the remaining 85% will tolerate treaty claims for only so long.

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

  145. “Our solution was in line with what Maori were seeking so no worries.”

    But your open to the whole hog or that’s what your policy implies also there is uncertainty as to the long term consequences of dividing up areas of coast line will it keep on increasing? will it lead to local consolidation of power around resources… what Chris Trotter called “a series of tribal cantons”

    “Which is a huge difference in terms of what can be done with the land.”

    the land in this case being “sea land” and the big difference being????

    ” Rather rose coloured no? Not at all like Zimbawe or Uganda or Rwanda or Fiji

    Yup, not at all like those places.”

    we have all the personalities here in Aotearoa (“haters and wreckers”)

    “One can respect another’s rights regardless of how saintly they are.”

    “property rights:

    “Speaking on behalf of Ngai Tahu, Tim Rochford told the panel on Tuesday that the [Foreshore and Seabed] act is the most significant attack on Maori property rights in his lifetime.

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

  146. So Valis, from a green perspective, do think that the foreshore is better off with human ‘owners’? Let’s just leave aside who those ‘owners’ might be and step back to the first principle. I take great comfort in going to the beach knowing it’s not owned, it seems to me to be the best way to protect both the people and (more importantly) the beach. I’d like to think The Green movements first concern would be the beach and it’s sustainability.

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

  147. >>And yes, I can see bloodshed in this matter.

    I don’t see how it can go any other way when Maori “leaders” are demanding the impossible.

    >>settlements need to be five times the size they are now,

    Where does that money come from? We don’t have it. If that’s the expectation, then we’re all scr*wed.

    Civil war?

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

  148. Not many non protesting Maori left. Like I said it could get ugly when 85% decide enough is enough.

    I think this is a real crock! MOST MAORI do not protest; they sit, roll their eyes and get on with life. The families at my grandson’s Kohanga do not protest, they read the paper and wonder which Maori millionaire is making more money out of this new claim!

    If we want a settlement, it’s actually easy. Offer EVERY person with an established claim to be Maori a one-time, permanent settlement of their and their successors and assigns claims under the treaty at the sum of $50,000 (Tax Free as it is a capital gain). For every 100,000 Maori that would be $5,000,000,000, so between $15 and $20 billion in total. Creating that much new fiat money will devalue the dollar, but heck, that’s no bit deal these days, and the entire issue can be closed as long as 75% of the Maori (as registered within 90 days of their birth with their iwi, accept the offer and so make it binding on all.

    I could live with that. How about the green party?

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

  149. Gerrit,

    There is not enough money or land in New Zealand to pay all those claims so I dont know what Maori are going to settle for.

    Its a good thing then that they have been so generous thus far, settling for little more than mana.

    Simply because whatever settlement is to be reached it wont be enough for Maori.

    There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    Biggest problem I see is a lack of willingness by Maori to acknowledge that the times have moved from when the treaty was signed and that they need to face up to some really unpleasant and harsh realities.

    An even bigger problem is your attitude to sorting out the other big problems.

    There is not enough money or land to fix the grievances and that the remaining 85% will tolerate treaty claims for only so long.

    If you let fear drive you, the outcome will be self fulfilling.

    jh,

    But your open to the whole hog or that’s what your policy implies also there is uncertainty as to the long term consequences of dividing up areas of coast line will it keep on increasing?

    No

    “Which is a huge difference in terms of what can be done with the land.”

    the land in this case being “sea land” and the big difference being????

    Customary ownership rights are very limited. The biggest difference is that the land cannot be sold.

    ” Rather rose coloured no? Not at all like Zimbawe or Uganda or Rwanda or Fiji

    Yup, not at all like those places.”

    we have all the personalities here in Aotearoa (”haters and wreckers”)

    Helen’s gone and Michael goes next week. His parting gift to Labour (Chris Trotter’s words) would seem to be recanting the Act that he personally wrote. In the Dom today:

    The architect of the act, former finance and Treaty negotiations minister Michael Cullen, said yesterday he now believed Maori should be able to seek customary title to the foreshore and seabed.

    But he did not believe customary title should be able to be converted into freehold title, which would enable its sale.

    Exactly our position in 2004. Even Matthew Hooton said this morning that everyone always new the Act was unjust.

    So Valis, from a green perspective, do think that the foreshore is better off with human ‘owners’?

    Not freehold owners, sam, who can do whatever they wish with their “assets”. But I have no issue with Maori customary title.

    I’d like to think The Green movements first concern would be the beach and it’s sustainability.

    Very important, and likely to be enhanced with Maori customary title recognised.

    I could live with that. How about the green party?

    Strings, I expect we could if it was a negotiated settlement. Whether Maori would accept a simple cash payment is another matter.

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

  150. Valis

    Whether Maori would accept a simple cash payment is another matter.

    Why would that be a problem? Maori families would end up with a decent amount of capital with which to either secure an annuity for their future life-style or an asset for long-term use and value appreciation. I think that if EVERY Maori was asked, a substantial (>80%) majority would say ‘thank you’ and get on with life.

    Your point

    I expect we could if it was a negotiated settlement

    would have to be mute, as this would be an offer to ALL Maori (as registered within 90 days of their birth with their iwi, as my Grandson was,) by the government on behalf of all non-Maori in full and final settlement.

    If there were Maori who refused to accept a plebiscite with > 75% agreement, then it would be clear that the time for talk and attempts to settle the matter once and for all where, and would remain, futile. In that case, we would come down, in my opinion, to two alternatives; a war between Maori and Pakeha – winner take all, or withdrawal from the treaty by Pakeha and acceptance of Maori’s rights and responsibilities to rule through traditional tribal protocols. Which of those would the Green Party support?

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

  151. Why would that be a problem?

    I’m not saying it would be, but thus far, settlements have been mixed packages that have included customary rights, etc, as well as some money, often a token amount. So having never asked for a simple cash settlement, its probably wise not to assume its what they really want. It is a constructive approach though which I don’t mean to cast aspersions on.

    Which of those would the Green Party support?

    I have no idea, but think it safe to say that the Green Party would not accept as a starting point that the two extremes you offer are the only possible scenarios.

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

  152. I guess what I’m saying, is that we need a resolution that provides EVERY Maori with compensation, allows us to terminate the treaty with honour for all, and allow New ZEaland to move forward as a leading multi-cultural society with both unique and common heritage.

    As long as we have a situation where we have a few people round a negotiating table, each representing a large number with no input into the positions going into, and bottom lines for coming out of, negotiations, there will be many unhappy people around the country.

    Rather than simply state the problem, I am trying to propose a resolution that everyone can live with. I think that the average Maori will consider $50,000 in their bank account (in trust and earning interest for minors obviously, but there,) fair compensation, and that the average pakeha will see $50k as not so much as to make them mad as hell.

    We need to move on from the 19th to the 21st century, and unless people start discussing ways to do that we will remain a backwater economy at the bottom of the world that no one is interested in other than as a nice, quaint, holiday destination.

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

  153. Maori customary title protecting the foreshore??
    I clearly remember in my youth the local maori strip mining the Pipi of my local beach. When we politely suggested that they take only a small amount each time we were told to F-off whitey! It’s taken 30-40 years for the Pipi beds to recover.
    Maori are just as destructive to the environment as anyone else. To suggest that they have a superior environmental record is an insult. We are all as bad as each other, no-one should have any right to any form of title to foreshore.

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

  154. The treaty settlements have no place as a means of enhancing th eposition of maori, we should not use them for that purpose. For that purpose we have the dole, we have free education, we have highly subsidised tertiary education, highly subsidised drugs and health care, state housing, etc, etc, etc. There is no reason why the treaty settlements should be used for this purpose and no reason why maori cannot excel in this society.
    Conquest by military force was recognised as entirley legitimate at the time of signing by maori and to a lesser extent by europeans, any land which was taken by the state by military force prior to the signing or from iwi whom did not sign is the legitimate property of the state of new zealand; maori have no claim over this other than as citizens. Land that was sold is again legitimate, reguardless of it it was for two buttons and dagger, for guns and ammo, or in cold hard cash; maori have no claim over this other than as citizens of new zealand. The ONLY legitimate claim maori have over any land in new zealand from the state is that which was illegitimatly taken, that is it was taken by military force from treaty signatories psot-signing or was taken under the public works act and then on-sold instead of used for public utility.
    Maori have no claim over the foreshore, the seabed, or the rivers, no right, no entitlements. The only thing that says they do is their religion; they have no more entitlement than I, born of a catholic family, have claim over zion, a holy holy place, and all the world created by god for the followers of the one true god to populate and rule over.

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

  155. sam,

    Maori are just as destructive to the environment as anyone else. To suggest that they have a superior environmental record is an insult.

    I never said superior, only that it would help. The reason is that customary title over F&S is largely about kai moana. The involvement of local Maori in development decisions would help knobble unsustainable development.

    We are all as bad as each other, no-one should have any right to any form of title to foreshore.

    Non sequitur

    Maori have no claim over the foreshore, the seabed, or the rivers, no right, no entitlements.

    Meanwhile, sap, in the real world where not all share the same view, we are left with negotiation.

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

  156. Valis,
    We may not share the same views, but humans are not known for their application of logic. There is absolutly no logical reason why maori should have more such rights or entitlements over the foreshore presuming that we desire a prosperous new zealand that can move foward in the absence of civil war and massive discrimination.
    Pretending that maori have more entitlement to the forehore, rivers, etc than anyone else is only breeding hatred.

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

  157. As a Green, I’d be the last to advise someone not to pursue a difficult cause they cared about. So I’ll just wish you good luck winning people to your view.

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

  158. Valis,
    Its not difficult in the slightest, atleast not when speaking to the general idiotic population or individuals whom can comprehend logic; not only do I have the logical basis but I have the empirical literature. Furthermore, the growing inter-race tension within this country acts as evidence in and of itself. The only ones its difficult to convince are those that rely not on logic but emotion and in doing so acheive the opposite to their actual goals (e.g. this party).

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

  159. To use a odd comparison; its not the people whom cannot screw in a light bulb that cause the problems nor those whom understand how lightbulbs work, but rather those whom can screw them in without any comprehension of how they cause such illumination.

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

  160. Well, to translate what I mean:
    The problems our society presenty faces in reguards to race relations are not caused by the idiotic general population, they are influenced by the minds above them and their own shallow understanding; they dont think “oh we must fix this”, they think “they are getting better things at our expence, those bast%rds” and “those bast%rds stole our land, they owe us”, they cant help it.
    The problem comes from those whom are smart enough that they can see the causes of some disparities and other things they consder undesirable and then attempt to correct them without first understanding the whole system and how each of the things they desire to change influence other things; this is true of both the left and the right.

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

  161. Involvement of maori in development decisions, I’m fine with that. One race having legal decision making powers over and above other New Zealanders disgusts me.

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

  162. # jh Says:
    April 21st, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Move on Metiria, Sue? Catherine, Nandor, Valis, Greenfly, Eredwen, Toad, Mark.

    The policy you support implies you support a separate reality; particularily the notion that people who identify as Maori (through ancestral connection) have spiritual connection with the land and by that (and by teaching) have advanced conservation ethics and skills as well as an (impartial) guardianship role.
    To put that differently if i skim your policy and statements I bet I will find plenty of evidence that there is implied or overt support for belief in a super natural world, affecting policy, which extends over a shared resource.
    =================

    # Valis Says:
    April 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Move on Metiria, Sue? Catherine, Nandor, Valis, Greenfly, Eredwen, Toad, Mark.

    We’re not the issue. In essence, we feel Te Tiriti guarantees Maori self determination. What this means in the modern context may not be clear, but what is clear to us is that Maori must be involved in the discussion without preconditions – otherwise we deny self determination from the start and will get no where. So unless you intend to impose your view on Maori by force, you need to be prepared to engage genuinely. So don’t argue with a bunch of pakeha, take your ideas to Maori. Who knows, they may like them.

    The rest of your post bears no resemblance to my reality.
    ========================

    Access to areas of public foreshore and seabed may be prohibited or restricted
    The Minister of Conservation should not have sole responsibility for restricting and prohibiting access to the public foreshore and seabed. This provision seriously fails to recognise and provide for kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. Kaitiaki who are mana whenua/mana moana should have better access to delegated authority provisions that would provide some ability to restrict or prohibit public access.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17411

    Kaitiakitanga

    The assistants of the gods are kaitiaki. They can be spirits, like the taniwha who take care of the waterways, or the spirits of dead ancestors, and they can be living creatures like trees, animals and human beings. The role of the assistants of the gods is called kaitiakitanga. As we saw earlier in this text, the Tawhito are the protectors of the creatures of the earth. Thus the person or the community who holds the mana whenua of a land is responsible for it.

    =============
    Try and slip out of that!

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

  163. What confuses the issue is a) Te Tirriti which has two versions and basically guarantess the natural areas and seas around their tribal areas.

    Note: the greens see the treaty not as a bad deal for none Maori ( a mess from the past) but a great good (apparently) and is to be promoted vigourously.

    b) the Greens support customary title claiming that Moari don’t and wont stop access and believe Moari to have a spiritual connection and role as guardians.

    c) the greens have a penchant for supporting anything anti establishment.

    d) who is a Moari: the stockmans measure is “highly offensive (embarrassing)”
    e) who speaks for Maori : according to the Greens only the moderates?

    Professor Jock Hobs reckons it wouldn’t be much and people shouldn’t have panicked

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

  164. # Valis Says:
    f) the greens blame Pakeha for just about all Maori’s problems.

    April 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    I see nothing I feel the need to slip out of.

    ======

    I thought you had been negating my claim that:

    “if i skim your policy and statements I bet I will find plenty of evidence that there is implied or overt support for belief in a super natural world, affecting policy, which extends over a shared resource.”

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

  165. I am of a generation which grew up thinking that the beaches and seas belonged to no one but every New Zealander with a Queens chain above the high water mark. Will the next generation when taken to the beach by their mothers be told “this is a Ngai Tahu beach” (because people with one Ngai Tahu ancestors and 3 European demanded it)? Is this what the greens want?

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

  166. I don’t much care what its called so long as I can swim in it.

    I thought you had been negating my claim…

    No, not consciously at any rate. I was ignoring your claim as untrue and at any rate irrelevant.

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

  167. It isn’t irrelevant because when you change rules affecting authority over areas you have to figure in the behaviour of the participants. Assuming one group are spritually connected and have a sacred role (since when?) is wrong.

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

  168. Firstly, you use “spirituality” and “supernatural” as though they are the same, but one can have a spiritual connection with something without it implying anything supernatural. I’m not saying Maori make this distinction, but as an atheist, I certainly do.

    Secondly, my support for Maori customary title has nothing to do with anything supernatural, so the matter is indeed irrelevant.

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

  169. Catherine delahunty Raves:
    I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beach” generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day. Yet she had been refused a chance to speak. I also waved a copy of Te Tiriti around in a flamboyant manner.

    The fatstest mass extinction ever was an example of site specific responsibilites? She’s a tad out with timing too according to the latest advances in carbon dating.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17412#15thSept

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

  170. Firstly, you use “spirituality” and “supernatural” as though they are the same, but one can have a spiritual connection with something without it implying anything supernatural. I’m not saying Maori make this distinction, but as an atheist, I certainly do.

    Secondly, my support for Maori customary title has nothing to do with anything supernatural, so the matter is indeed irrelevant.
    =======

    So spiritual is like “in good spirits”?

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

  171. I like the way Dan Dennett puts it:

    What these people have realised is one of the best secrets of life: let your self go. If you can approach the world’s complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered, and engaged, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, it the secret to spirituality and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural.

    Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, p.303.

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

  172. “It was a day for pissed off people-we had the first trespass notice
    issued. Toby Rikihana took his opportunity to tell as exactly what he
    thought about us-which was’nt terribly pleasant nor couched in niceties.
    It is horrible being called a dummy and mongrels but to some extent why
    not just let him rant and move on.”

    “Then Gordon Jackman, wearing his “qualified archaeologist” hat took the Committee on a journey from a beach of sand and shells through to the 1868 Deed of Cession on the East Coast, wherein the foreshore and seabed were never ceded. He explained how from the archaeological layers they uncovered at the Port of Gisborne, you can see people arriving, establishing manawhenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework, and then the violent imposition of Pakeha power in that place. Gordon challenged the committee to re assess their limited understanding of the term “ownership” and to recognise that the Bill was a continuation of Crown violence based on a crude and absurd underestanding of the word”ownership” He described the process as part of “democratheid” a word he has coined which describes the majority imposition of racist policy in a democrarcy. He also described the consequences as not civil war in the conventional sense but a long term proliferation of misery, poverty, misunderstanding and injustice.”

    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/17412#9thSept

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

  173. Valis,
    Ummm, they are kinda related. Sprituality is to do with the spirit, a supernatural concept.
    Taken from Merriam-Webster:

    spirituality
    noun
    1 : something that in ecclesiastical law belongs to the church or to a cleric as such
    2 : clergy
    3 : sensitivity or attachment to religious values
    4 : the quality or state of being spiritual

    spiritual
    adjective
    1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal
    2 a: of or relating to sacred matters b: ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal
    3: concerned with religious values
    4: related or joined in spirit
    5 a: of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b: of, relating to, or involving spiritualism

    spirit
    noun
    1: an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms
    2: a supernatural being or essence: as acapitalized : holy spirit b: soul 2a c: an often malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible ; specifically : ghost 2 d: a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being
    3: temper or disposition of mind or outlook especially when vigorous or animated
    4: the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person
    5 a: the activating or essential principle influencing a person b: an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind : mood
    6 a: a special attitude or frame of mind b: the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something

    So, spirituality is intrinsically an appeal to the supernatural. Of course you can, and i suspect you do, tak the 6th definition of spirit in which case your entire arguement relating to spirituality becomes “we should give the maori the land because it would make them feel good”. pfft!
    And for the record, atheism is a system of faith, it is little better than theism.

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

  174. Catherine Delahunty green Party:
    “Then Gordon Jackman, wearing his “qualified archaeologist” hat took the Committee on a journey from a beach of sand and shells through to the 1868 Deed of Cession on the East Coast, wherein the foreshore and seabed were never ceded.

    Chris Trotter; per Joe Bloggs
    “If this is, indeed, National’s intention, Mr Key’s new-found allies from the Maori nationalist movement have pulled off an extraordinary political coup.

    By convincing the National Party leader that the foreshore and seabed issue is nothing more than a dispute over property law, they have opened the way to a much more radical application of indigenous rights.

    For who can dispute that, at one time, the entire geographical entity we call New Zealand was the property of Maori collectivities?

    And, if they have a customary right to New Zealand’s beaches, then why not its rivers, estuaries, swamps, lakes, forests and everything else?

    I suspect National Party voters see things a little differently.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/258693

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

  175. Two quotes, from separate posts above, intrigue me.

    The first from Gordon Jackman, an archaeologist

    “you can see people arriving, establishing mana whenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework,”

    The second from Valis’ definition of Kaitiakitanga

    “Thus the person or the community who holds the mana whenua of a land is responsible for it.”

    What this suggests to me is that pakeha are mana whenua, as they certainly look to have established that position since arriving. Isn’t this part of the natural impact of mass migration, first of Maori to this land, then of pakeha?

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

  176. Perhaps the problem is is that we slip into the other reality (of the members of the closed society) when we use mana whenua , so it only applies to Maori and thereby gives them authority over we pakeha in the other reality?

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

  177. Perhaps you have to log in as root to be tangatawhenua and we pakeha don’t have administrator privileges.

    Margaret Mutu

    5.
    Māori Role in Aotearoa/New Zealand
    Defined by tikanga (our laws)
    derive from a world view that we inherited from our ancestors
    rooted as much in the spiritual aspects of this world as the physical.
    based on underlying values which include
    Mana – authority, power, control, ownership, status, influence, dignity, respect all derived from the gods
    Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force
    Whanaungatanga – kinship, relationships through genealogical bonds
    Kaitiakitanga – inherited responsibilities to take care of all our natural resources including our lands, waters, seas and other taonga
    Rangatiratanga – chieftainship including sovereignty, rights of self-determination, self government, authority and power to make decisions and own and control resources.

    6. Our tikanga determines that :
    We are tangata whenua – we are the hosts for all who visit this country (and hence need to determine immigration policy)
    We have a duty of manaaki manuhiri – we are obliged to look after our guests and ensure they are well-treated and respected.
    And if they decide to stay then they need a good understanding of our tikanga so that we can all live here in harmony.
    We also need a good understanding of our guest’s tikanga so that we know how to look after them properly.
    Pākehā settlement and introduced legal system has not and can not change these fundamental values and principles but it has made it very difficult for us to carry out our responsibilities.

    Guest: One who is a recipient of hospitality at the home or table of another.

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

  178. Ummm, they are kinda related. Sprituality is to do with the spirit, a supernatural concept.

    I do understand the traditional definition. I could have added, though it wasn’t relevant to the discussion, that Dan’s definition is a response to theists who think that an atheist ‘s life must awfully bland and even inhuman without a spiritual dimension.

    the 6th definition of spirit in which case your entire arguement relating to spirituality becomes “we should give the maori the land because it would make them feel good”. pfft!

    Not at all. I’ve made no argument based on spirituality. It just one of jh’s obsessions.

    And for the record, atheism is a system of faith, it is little better than theism.

    I’m sure I’ll regret it, but pray tell us what on earth you mean by that.

    The second from Valis’ definition of Kaitiakitanga

    Not my quote.

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

  179. >>And for the record, atheism is a system of faith, it is little better than theism.

    I’m not sure that atheism is a faith in the same way as theism. It is unprovable in much the same way as ‘There are no Unicorns’. However whereas theism is non-falsifiable it is conceivably demonstrable: In theory a Being portraying god like properties could reveal itself. (Afterall ‘theism’ is the belief in a ‘revealed’ god… as distinct from deism.) Hence, it would seem to follow that, atheism is falsifiable and – stretching the criteria a little – as such could be considered as a sort of ‘meta’ scientific hypothesis.

    Just thoughts…

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

  180. Just in case Meteria dooesn’t bang on about the treaty again I’m going to suggest that “treaty settlement” is an oxymoron.

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

  181. >>all derived from the gods…Tapu – sacredness, spiritual power or protective force

    Religious whackjobs.

    How is this any different from Bush and his far-right Christian mates?

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

  182. None insofar as they are all myth. How about Bush wanted to conquer the world, the Empire wanted the galaxy, while Maori just want their Treaty rights :-)

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

  183. “while Maori just want their Treaty rights ”

    rhetoric: who is a Maori? and consider customary title to foreshore and seabed (controversy) overlaid by the treaty (Maori verison) giving those rights a potentially vast extent.

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

  184. Why are some of you so afraid of any real discussion with Maori about what they think is important? Private ownership and dollars are not the point (forget individual greed for a moment, Maori vary as much as anyone else in terms of individual morality), recognition of a different way of engaging with the natural world is more what it is about.

    It actually isn’t very hard or threatening – communication between respectful equals is beneficial to both. It’s the imposition of a particular set of rules without discussion or consent that creates problems.

    This isn’t just theory – the community I live in is a Maori majority; much of the land is Maori land; most of the processes of discussion are a blend of Maori and Pakeha traditions (and often language). Our health system, our schools and tertiary institution all see themselves as bicultural and it works just fine thank you. Of course there are disagreements and disappointments, but overall there is mutual respect.

    One of my old friends commented that for her that was what rangatiratanga was about: respect for each other’s perspective.

    I don’t see much respect from some of you in here and I think that is what is the base of much of the problem you have with the troublesome tangata whenua.

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

  185. In summary the treaty and colonisation was an alternative to invasion and war , or more likely colonisation without a treaty (and limited war). There were two versions for good reason; there was no agreement on sovereignty (because it was prior to colonisation and the power balance was firmly in Maori hands). Clunky arrangements of power sharing based on inherited rights rather than democracy, will lead to an overall worst result unless the ‘partner” has something to offer which is better than the average of the other partner.

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

  186. “This isn’t just theory – the community I live in is a Maori majority; much of the land is Maori land; most of the processes of discussion are a blend of Maori and Pakeha traditions (and often language). Our health system, our schools and tertiary institution all see themselves as bicultural and it works just fine thank you. Of course there are disagreements and disappointments, but overall there is mutual respect.”

    At the local community level this may work because pakeha/maori don’t bother about the difference but at other levels it is us versus them and you get a different type of behaviour including (perhaps) an infusion of “haters and wreckers”.

    “One of my old friends commented that for her that was what rangatiratanga was about: respect for each other’s perspective. ”

    Fine lets just share the beaches.

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

  187. Te Treaty needs to Go. It is an unworkable Document, spurious in foundation, that guarantees and perpetuates a separation between the Races. One that no one is happy with.

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

  188. Janine,
    I have no problem with discussion with maori on the matter, it would prehaps be good to actually discuss it with maori however instead of self apointed representitives and colonial appologists. I have always here promoted such discussion but one has to recognise that some set-ups are purely unworkable not just for political reasons but because of inbuilt psychological reactions. We cannot have one group based on inherited traits with more say than another based on inherited traits; that only leads to massive intergroup divisions; keep in mind that almost every great genocide has come about because of perceived intergroup differences smaller than those that are considered reasonable in this cooperation.
    As mark says, the treaty in its present form must go, it is an unworkable document that serves only to divide groups and create tensions best absent. We cannot just ripp it up or rewrite defininitions, we must replace it with a better document that ensures equallity for all new zealanders and we must do this not with one ethnicity overpowering another but with approval of the majority of both parties; something that cannot be done with the likes of the greens and maori party constantly stiring up ethnic tensions sue to the misplaced guilt they feel (in the case of the green party) and their own desire to gain power and seem heroes (in the case of the maori party). Encouragement of devisiveness is only going to lead to the detriment of society; every peice of psych research into the area has supported this. infact the only psuchologists (actually anthropologists) whom dispute this are the politically correct ones whom whilst they agree that discrimination is terrible and spend their whole carriers fighting it spend their whole carriers promoting it in the form of ‘positive’ discrimination, a form they, in their naivity, fail to recognise is exactly the same thing with the same consequences except that now the majority is being victimised which means that genocide is made not only possible but likely. the holocaust happened because the majority german race felt victimised by the jews because the jews were so sucessful, because they put effort in a reaped the rewards. The discrimination was non existant, infact the jews were discriminated against more than the germans, but since th germans perceived the jews to be victimising the germans the germans were able to be manipulated by a charasmatic individual to hights of hatred that genocide was made possible and that charasmatic individual was hailed, something i expect tariana turea desires for herself :P .

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

  189. Kjuv,
    I appologise for the late reply, i only just saw your post.
    First, I said ‘little better’ which implies it is infact better but no by much.
    Second, while on the face of it theism can be proven and atheism may be disproven this is purely theoretical. Theism amounts to a hypothesis and atheism the corrisponding null-hypothesis, only one can be true. On practical application though, is there any event imaginable which can logically prove god to exist, if not then both the hypothesis and null hypothesis can neither be proven or disproven; a charateristic of theories which make no concrete predictions. Let us discard the pray and fire methodology used in the bible as one can easily think of ways to acheive such results in the absence of god. Let us consider the most dirrect possible proof; god appears before all of humanity and destroys all from non-abrahamic faiths; would this prove gods existance? the answer is no because essence of the montheitic god is that god created all and as such has always been, so the test of if the individual claiming to be god was god would be to see if it existed before everythign else but since it existed before everything else the only method to confirm this is to ask the proposed god themselves in which case we are relying on their truthfulness and it infact proves nothing. Likewise finding that they are not god would not mean that someone else out there was.
    so while in theory atheism is disprovable it is in action just as disprovable as theism; it isint. I, like any good scientist, like to take the neutral agnostic possition between the hypothesis and the null-hypothesis untill i havve evidence for one or the other so that my own personal bias does not cloud my interpritation of the results. Also, while deism is an attractive option it is kind of a cop-out as all it comes to is redefining the essence of god such that it is agreeable, in some form, to all e.g. god is the universe.

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

  190. For a change I agree with just about all of this Sapient, except your comments on being agnostic. It is very cheeky to suggest that this is the position held by all “good” scientists, as there are many, many who are quite willing to go further and characterise themselves as atheists. This isn’t because they feel the existence of god has been disproved, but because they feel the vast preponderance of evidence points in that direction, with a vanishingly small amount, if any, pointing in the other. Russell’s teapot comes to mind. That we can’t disprove the existence of a porcelain teapot orbiting the sun somewhere does not mean we are agnostic about its existence. Instead, we also factor in the likely probability that such a thing might be true when forming our position.

    On the other hand, if you define agnostic as including any level of doubt no matter how small, it would then be fair to say that “any good scientist” would define themselves as agnostic . But this is not a broad enough definition as it implies a 50/50 likelihood of the outcome going either way and few scientists would be in that position.

    The problem I have with your previous comment that atheism is a faith is that, by definition, faith survives regardless of objective fact. A scientist who is an atheist is at least open to changing their position, even if its true that no such proof could ever be forthcoming, while a theist would never make such a claim.

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

  191. Valis,
    You misunderstand.
    In application to science I am not saying scientists should be agnotic in terms of god, I am saying that they should be agnostic (unknowing) in terms of their experimetal hypotheses until the experiment has been done and the results interprited because otherwise the results and interpritation are tinted to suit that scientists own agenda or own world views. Thats why I have such a problem with critical social scientists whom seek not knowledge for the sake of knowledge and the utility it may provide but so that they may use it as a statistic to promote their own personal political cause.

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

  192. Valis,
    additionally, if you beleive that god does not exist but admit there is a possibility that god does then you are not, by definition, an atheist. That is an agnostic stance. Both theism and athesim necesitate the beleif that the alternative hypothesis cannot be. Even dawkins acknowledges this when he talks about ‘shades’ or ‘degrees’ of atheism’, even he acknowledges that a complete atheist is little better than a complete theist in terms of their use of logic.

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

  193. That is what my second paragraph says, and I too had Dawkins in mind. It is true only in a very technical sense though; certainly Dawkins does not shy away from the term “atheist”!

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

  194. Thats why I have such a problem with critical social scientists whom seek not knowledge for the sake of knowledge and the utility it may provide but so that they may use it as a statistic to promote their own personal political cause.

    Indeed.

    The entire AGW debate, for starters. The Greens have lept to a conclusion, yet call us unscientific.

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

  195. Valis,

    – “if you beleive that god does not exist but admit there is a possibility that god does then you are not, by definition, an atheist.”

    Hardly.

    With regards to Bertrand Russell’s notion of a small china teapot orbiting the sun, for example, I am an atheist, whilst at the same time agreeing that it could exist; as could any of an infinate number of other ludicrous but unprovable scenarios you care to invent, from invisible unicorns to tooth fairies.

    It is a question of what it is reasonable to believe.

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

  196. Wat,
    those are my words not valis’.
    *from unicorns, to tooth fairies to gods.*
    The toot fairy is necesitated to explain how mony appears under the pillow and the tooth disappears without a better explanation and appeal to the parents; it is wilful deception of the children to keep them happy and stop them moaning about the pain of wigly teeth. Likewise god is only necsitated to explain natural phenomina when there si no alternative explanation or to make us feel happy and keep us under control. We have the explainations now, we can explain how things happen without appeal to god. It is just as reasonable for someone to beleive in god as it is for a child to beleive in the tooth fairy, in both instances because of naivity and a suposed authoritative source.

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

  197. Ah BUT: to believers God is more than, an explanation of the unexplained or the First Cause or the raison d’etre for the Universe’s very existence. Even the discovery of the ‘God Particle’ (Higgs Boson) or, alternatively, the foundation of some new particle physics, is unlikely to diminish their faith – indeed it may increase it. No, the belief a supernatural Being (or Beings) – especially a ‘revealed’ one – as an important adjunct.

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

  198. OOPs… I meant to say ‘ Has a moral code as an important adjunct’. Apologies

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

  199. Kjuv,
    I am not denying that theism does serve a purpose, infact it serves many many purposes, but if or if not it serves a purpose is irrelivant in an arguement of the rationality of belief.
    That theism has a purpose i do not doubt, its moral code is one such purpose, as is its ability to decrease anomie, increase adherance to rules, and tolerance of the status quo. it increases willingness to die, be that good or bad, and encourages god-fearing folk to, in an act of selfishness, supposedly act selfless. While these are not unique to theism these are however much harder to justify from a non-theistic standpoint, there is no need for logic or intelect to make someone adhere to religious teachings and as such it keeps the masses in order, a non-theistic perspective however must rely on appeal to logic and self interest.

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

  200. The entire AGW debate, for starters. The Greens have lept to a conclusion, yet call us unscientific.

    We didn’t leap to anything. What we’ve done is accept what most climate scientists are telling us is very likely true.

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

  201. “It is a question of what it is reasonable to believe.”

    Exactly, it is ludicrous to suggest that life spontainiously emerged with the mathmatical odds showing it to be quite impossible.
    It is how ever, entirely reasonable to assume atheist scientists will interpret scientific evidence in a way that supports their pre conceived conclusions.
    To suggest that atheists have some inherant commitment to ultimate truth, that makes them the only true objective voice on the nature of the universe is rediculous.

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

  202. “Samiam,
    Karl Marx.”

    He also said:

    “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”

    ie. A.G.W.

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

  203. shunda said: Exactly, it is ludicrous to suggest that life spontainiously emerged with the mathmatical odds showing it to be quite impossible.

    and yet, shunda, and yet…

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

  204. Oh, so because we are here it must have happened all by it self.
    That has the appearace of wisdom, until you actually engage brain and think about it!!
    At the end of the day you chaps need as much faith for your position as I do mine. :)

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

  205. Shunda,
    Not mine so much, :P .
    But as a general rule one should apply occams razor and should seek an answer less complicated than the question or ultimatly the answer explains nothing; by saying ‘god did it’ it necasarily brings up all sorts of questions relating to why, how, how god came into existance, etc etc. On the other hand the evolution side of things is pure statistics, nothing more than probabilities; simple to the point of beauty. But then again, as an agnostic, I admit the possibility of both, as unlikley your side may be.

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

  206. This is actually very relevant to this debate. While many treaty revisionists don’t say as much, their real motivation for suggesting Maori were “tricked” is because almost all of those Maori were professing Christians at the time. Our left wing history revisionists would love to imply that that this somehow invalidates the process undertaken.
    All this reaveals is personal bigoted prejudice towards a faith they don’t like.
    Christianity actually served NZ very well in the early days, probably more so than any other western nation.
    From what I understand, the missionaries that came here initially proposed that NZ remain a predominately Maori nation, free from major european settlement.

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

  207. “On the other hand the evolution side of things is pure statistics, nothing more than probabilities”

    Ahh, and there in lies the problem, from my observations of modern science there would seem to be a big problem of “can’t see the forest for the trees” going on.
    As one author said “the problem with modern science is there is so much of it!”
    Personally I find the latest findings on the study of the universe, and biology not the least bit threatning to my faith, infact quite the opposite.
    I am currently reading the “divinity code” by Ian Wishart, I would recomend it to anyone interested in bringing the “God” debate back to a level playing field, due to poorly written books by chaps like mr Dawkins.

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

  208. There certainly was a group of missionaries advocating the position you outline Shunda, but the larger group saw their ‘mission’ as twofold: bringing both religion and ‘civilisation’.

    I think it’s hard to generalise about missionaries as a single group. Some certainly were an ameliorating force over the damaging and negative acts of other Pakeha (for example appealing to the British Government to step in – something they were initially reluctant to do). But this has to be balanced against, for example, the shonky land deals missionaries were responsible for.

    And by the way, the idea that the Treaty was exceptional and an act of enlightened practice by the Crown has been comprehensively dispelled by David Williams, amongst others. Treaties were standard colonising practice, usually followed by build-up of military force and then historical amnesia.

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

  209. “I think it’s hard to generalise about missionaries as a single group.”

    Agreed. I am not one of those Christians that believes the word “Christian” makes you a good or honorable person in itself, also, that some pakeha used the efforts of well meaning missionaries is undeniable.
    Like any new territory, there will always be opportunists that will use any and everything they can to gain land, power, or both.
    This is clearly what happened after the treaty was signed.
    This is where the situation becomes confused, because I believe there were Pakeha that sincerely wanted to live in peace with Maori under the treaty, and then the opportunists that used the treaty as a means to pursue their own agenda.
    I don’t believe this was the intention of the treaty signing.
    Like always, people that put in the hard work to acheive something positive are often taken advantage of after the hard work is done.

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

  210. Oh, so because we are here it must have happened all by it self.

    None of us have said that.

    That has the appearace of wisdom, until you actually engage brain and think about it!!

    That’s the purpose of a straw man!

    At the end of the day you chaps need as much faith for your position as I do mine.

    Only if you make up silly stuff and pretend someone believes it.

    Ahh, and there in lies the problem, from my observations of modern science there would seem to be a big problem of “can’t see the forest for the trees” going on.

    I’d love to hear more about this!

    Personally I find the latest findings on the study of the universe, and biology not the least bit threatning to my faith, infact quite the opposite.

    Nor should you, for that’s what faith is. When young, I was taught by my church to have faith and not seek proof. I think that is wise advice. Its when the faithful start insisting science somehow backs up their faith that they start looking really ridiculous. Why isn’t your faith enough?

    I am currently reading the “divinity code” by Ian Wishart, I would recommend it to anyone interested in bringing the “God” debate back to a level playing field, due to poorly written books by chaps like mr Dawkins.

    LOL! Care to entertain us with some of Wishart’s wisdom?

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

  211. Ah! So that’s your position on missionaries, Shunda!

    To some people, Shunda, Ian Wishart is God.
    Thankfully, there is nobody on this side of the blog-divide foolish enough to think that, but I think you know where you will find zealots who do! :-)

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

  212. “Its when the faithful start insisting science somehow backs up their faith that they start looking really ridiculous. Why isn’t your faith enough?”

    You know what Valis, I actually partially agree with you on that one. I personally have had great difficulty with some Christians bizarre beliefs on creation science, particularly the “young earth” kind.
    But to suggest that because I am a Christian I have no mandate to try to understand the universe around me is pretty unfair. I have always been interested in a wide range of scientific subjects, from plate tectonics, to the big bang theory, I don’t think I should switch that off because of my “faith”.
    In my opinion, those Christians that pursue the “really ridiculous” ideas you speak of, are simply insecure in their faith. They are desparateley grasping to reduce God to their own minds ability to percieve who, and what he is, if they can understand Him, they can contain Him.
    I have pondered the creation question for a long time and have realised there is just too much knowledge to contain in one mind for any one individual to see the whole picture.
    Likewise, it is impossible for one scientist to be an expert in all fields, there is just too much knowledge to comprehend, and too little life span to do it in.
    My desire is that people realise it is not about proving or disproving God, people like Dawkins are unfairly skewing the debate to a conclusion that is premature, and that is dishonest.

    “LOL! Care to entertain us with some of Wishart’s wisdom?”

    You mock Wishart, but he has as much right to comment on atheism and unbelief as Dawkins does about faith and religion.
    Whether you like him or not he is a very good investigative journalist and he is a very distinct voice in Christianity, hardly your standard “God botherer”.
    I dare you to read his book “the divinity code” you may actually enjoy it.

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

  213. “To some people, Shunda, Ian Wishart is God.”

    I imagine some (many?) of you chaps would think Christains see Ian Wishart as some sort of champion of the faith, the reality is that is not the case……he tells the truth to much!!

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

  214. Lol, I think it is debatable how much Dawkins has contributed. On one side he has made it more bearable for atheists and agnostics to come out about their beleifs or lack there of but on the other hand the only people he has really recruited are those whom would not have otherwise “seen the light”; that si the only people he has managed to recruit are those whom were too stupid to see it in the first place, people whom cant even provide a decent arguement for their beleif and act to teh detriment of others whom have reasonable motives for such beleif. The same goes for the green movement really, there are alot whom just cling on but were really too stupid to see it all without the prompting of others, its just as detrimental. Thus is the nature of the swing vote i guess.

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

  215. “Lol, I think it is debatable how much Dawkins has contributed.”

    Quite a number of people in positions of authority have taken on his attitudes, especially those with an anti Christian axe to grind.
    All people need is the smallest excuse, and “the smart man said so” will do just fine.

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

  216. Kevin PMP Hague says:

    “And by the way, the idea that the Treaty was exceptional and an act of enlightened practice by the Crown has been comprehensively dispelled by David Williams, amongst others. Treaties were standard colonising practice, usually followed by build-up of military force and then historical amnesia.”

    So the fact that the slaves had recently been set free and the part played by the society for the protection of aboriginals etc was insignificant?

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

  217. David Williams :

    “It is plain nonsense to seize only on the discredited system of apartheid to peremptorily dismiss calls for Maori tribal self-determination in Aotearoa New Zealand. Why can we not see what we might learn from successful examples of indigenous peoples asserting their own autonomy in ways that include the diversity of others living in the same”

    So the greens do support a series of tribal cantons?

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

  218. “So the fact that the slaves had recently been set free and the part played by the society for the protection of aboriginals etc was insignificant?”

    Exactly, the treaty was written in a time of cultural revolution and was the result of much more enlightened thinking, hardly insignificant.

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

  219. So the greens do support a series of tribal cantons?

    Do you not understand what David Williams is saying, or perhaps just making another one of your jokes?

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

  220. well I’d say I can’t see this debate as a biggie – stopped marking ‘Race Questions’ as ‘Does Not Discriminate or ‘ NZEuro’ and put in ‘other’ these days; – oh yeah a’hm a rare species, ‘KIwi’ Me. No blood but Kiwi blood; and we have made peace here – and if we need “Waitangi 2′ for this country to unite and stand up at last. I say go for it.
    Go on Frog – get one of your mates in Parliament to declare me a ‘Kiwi’ – plain and simple. I’d be proud to go First.
    How am I living in a lush country of only four millions souls, yet find poverty?! In this Land!?
    Someone is pocketing our heritage? – the slaves aren’t free, may never be.
    But if you wait long enough – the right thing could get done – in half measures and twenty years too late…seeya in the funny papers…

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

  221. But to suggest that because I am a Christian I have no mandate to try to understand the universe around me is pretty unfair.

    Not what I said. I talked of those seeking proof and insisting science backs up their faith. If you go into it with that attitude, you will be disappointed as science will not cooperate. If on the other hand you don’t demand this from science, you decide to have faith no matter what, then you don’t have to constantly struggle with the fact that science always contradicts – you know better anyway, so relax.

    In my opinion, those Christians that pursue the “really ridiculous” ideas you speak of, are simply insecure in their faith.

    I guess that’s what I’m saying too.

    My desire is that people realise it is not about proving or disproving God, people like Dawkins are unfairly skewing the debate to a conclusion that is premature, and that is dishonest.

    Dawkins isn’t trying to disprove god. He is saying that science provides no reason to believe in god, and also that science is the only objective way to understand the universe. Perhaps one can argue philosophically with the later, but surely not the former.

    “LOL! Care to entertain us with some of Wishart’s wisdom?”

    You mock Wishart, but he has as much right to comment on atheism and unbelief as Dawkins does about faith and religion.

    That doesn’t mean he should be taken as seriously.

    I dare you to read his book “the divinity code” you may actually enjoy it.

    Really? Why don’t I don’t think so. I’m a little worried about some of the bizarre stuff he’s attributed as saying. But if you can post a profound statement or two to convince me, I might reconsider.

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

  222. “Surely political debate in this country needs to include reasoned discussions of what are the minimum parameters necessary for the operation of the state while embracing the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination.”

    Maybe the greens could expand on this:
    minimum parameters necessary for the operation of The State:
    airports
    defence

    Iwi:
    Kaitiaki responsibilites (no need fro DOC?)

    (soory ‘bit tired , fellas got to earn a living…. Good Nite)

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

  223. But before I go:

    “The Nunanvet and Nishgaa nations in Canada are two of many examples I am aware of for indigenous or First Nations exercising self-determination and autonomy through their own representative institutions in the United States and Canada.

    The Sami nation in Norway have their own parliament. Even in Britain the Scottish Parliament legislates for separate rights and separate privileges for Scotland, and of course Scottish law is quite different from English common law.”

    Hmmmmm Bosnia? and what about density, and demographics. Can Scotland and England be compared to Pakeha and “Tangatawhenua”?

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

  224. “then you don’t have to constantly struggle with the fact that science always contradicts”

    Valis, that may be true for “young earthers” and other dogmatic “creation science” positions, but I don’t find science contradicts belief in God at all.
    I am not really interested in “creation science” for this reason, these well meaning but mis guided Christians have declared war on the scientific community and would have us believe that all “evolutionists” are evil twisted people hell bent on the moral decline of the human race.
    Not suprisingly they open themselves up to a tremendous amount of ridicule. I can’t help but think if it wasn’t for these people there would not be the huge rift between science and religion.
    While it is true that I shouldn’t demand answers from science to support my faith, it is not true to say science is always in conflict with faith.
    Science may very well be in conflict with “flood geology” and other concepts creationists have come up with, but you must realise these concepts are quite separate from the religion these people claim to represent.
    There are a number of secular scientists astonished at the fine tuning of the universe, and skirt around the idea of alien architects or a deity of some sort, this is hardly in conflict with the Christian God.
    Likewise, the theory of evolution takes it as a given that abiogenesis has occured, though there is not even a consensus on how it was possible, and it can’t be demonstrated in a lab no matter how hard they try.
    My starting position is not all that different, I have faith that God did it, biologists have faith that aboigenesis somehow occured spontaneously.
    This is the point I was making, regardless of whether people are religious or not, an element of faith is required to make a choice on how to interpret the ultimate reality around us.

    “Dawkins isn’t trying to disprove god. He is saying that science provides no reason to believe in god”

    Yes, but only in the same way that studying a leaf provides no reason to believe in a tree, if you’ve never seen a tree before. I would suggest our understanding of the universe is only just beginning, Dawkins is attempting to draw a conclusion prematurely.
    Science provides no reason NOT to believe in God, unless that belief is based on “creation science” instead of faith.

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

  225. Belgium also wants to split up along Cultural Lines – the negative being the Financial and other costs to a Nation united. I can already live in New Zealand, as a Kiwi, and respect my own Cultural Ancestors and Heritage without interference – how self-determination would enhance this I could not say….but I deem it unnecessary for mr – I know who and where I'[m from; this respect does not require recognition from others.

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

  226. I think spiritual awareness is the question , without any discussion of the possibility of God (an extremely personal notion) – one I am free to take a position on without making it a Political Footy Match.

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

  227. “then you don’t have to constantly struggle with the fact that science always contradicts”

    Valis, that may be true for “young earthers” and other dogmatic “creation science” positions, but I don’t find science contradicts belief in God at all.

    I am glad to hear your renouncement of creationism, but do note I never mentioned this at all.

    While it is true that I shouldn’t demand answers from science to support my faith, it is not true to say science is always in conflict with faith.

    OK so far as it goes, but the history of the last many centuries is that science has constantly contradicted religious beliefs, from a geocentric universe, through the idea of deep time, and particularly with natural selection, which has as one of its most controversial claims that there is no directionality nor concept of progress in evolution. While one discovery after another has further knocked humanity off its pedestal, there have been no discoveries that had the effect of restoring us to that pedestal.

    Science may very well be in conflict with “flood geology” and other concepts creationists have come up with, but you must realise these concepts are quite separate from the religion these people claim to represent.

    The point is that they are erroneously trying to use science to support their beliefs. I don’t think this can be done, either with the creationist’s ludicrous approach or by your more subtle arguments.

    There are a number of secular scientists astonished at the fine tuning of the universe, and skirt around the idea of alien architects or a deity of some sort, this is hardly in conflict with the Christian God.

    Not being able to explain something provides NO support for a deity.

    Likewise, the theory of evolution takes it as a given that abiogenesis has occured, though there is not even a consensus on how it was possible, and it can’t be demonstrated in a lab no matter how hard they try.

    See above, absence of proof is not proof of absence and provides no support for a deity at any rate.

    My starting position is not all that different, I have faith that God did it, biologists have faith that aboigenesis somehow occured spontaneously.

    The scientists “faith” is not at all the same as your faith. It is a hypothesis informed by the information available.

    This is the point I was making, regardless of whether people are religious or not, an element of faith is required to make a choice on how to interpret the ultimate reality around us.

    I’m sorry, but that is very muddled thinking.

    Dawkins offers this thought experiment. Imagine a universe that does not have a creator. What do we understand about our own universe that would need to change in this imagined universe? The answer is nothing. That this leads to the observation that science offers no support for the existence of god is simply the only logical conclusion.

    “Dawkins isn’t trying to disprove god. He is saying that science provides no reason to believe in god”

    Yes, but only in the same way that studying a leaf provides no reason to believe in a tree, if you’ve never seen a tree before.

    Yes, the leaf could be attached to an unseen tree, or it could be attached to an aircraft carrier, or any manner of other things, or to nothing at all. There must be a reason to believe there is more to it.

    I would suggest our understanding of the universe is only just beginning, Dawkins is attempting to draw a conclusion prematurely.

    Not a conclusion in the sense of all the evidence being in. We’re agreed that is not possible. But a preliminary position based on the evidence at hand, none of which supports the existence of a deity.

    Science provides no reason NOT to believe in God, unless that belief is based on “creation science” instead of faith.

    That is VERY wishful thinking. One by one, science has knocked down every material reason mankind has had for believing in God – I gave just a few examples above. If you want to believe nonetheless, you must do so in spite of what science is telling you.

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

  228. “I don’t think this can be done, either with the creationist’s ludicrous approach or by your more subtle arguments.”

    I don’t think they are that subtle, probably just different to the standard Christian arguments put forward.

    “Not being able to explain something provides NO support for a deity.”

    Yes, but it is also not the condemning evidence against one that atheists presume, deferring the debate “until further notice” because of a lack of condemning evidence is more than a little unfair.

    “Dawkins offers this thought experiment. Imagine a universe that does not have a creator. What do we understand about our own universe that would need to change in this imagined universe? The answer is nothing.”

    Well, if Dawkins created this universe he would be qualified to make that statement in honesty. The reality is if a “god” created this universe with all the asociated laws of physics, why would an imagined universe need to be any different than the mark 1 version?

    “That is VERY wishful thinking. One by one, science has knocked down every material reason mankind has had for believing in God – I gave just a few examples above. If you want to believe nonetheless, you must do so in spite of what science is telling you.”

    Once again, science has knocked down a number of dogmatic elements due to the ignorance of people representing the church. The question is were those people acurately representing the Christian faith?, and were they acurately interpreting the scriptures?.
    Remember, Jesus indicated the greatest oposition to truth would often come from those claiming to follow him.
    I would suggest some of those pushing creation science are the modern day equivalent, these are the people giving the likes of Dawkins the amunition he needed to inflict a seemingly devasting attack.
    This does not mean that science is in conflict with faith, just certain personal beliefs of those claiming to beleive.
    I must confess Valis, I am not really your typical Christian, I don’t fit in well with much of “organised religion” I have been accused of being a “revolutionary” with some of my ideas (or even just questions!), and they weren’t being nice! :)
    Its good to have an honest, challenging discussion.

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

  229. Its good to have an honest, challenging discussion.

    Yes, thanks for that. I’m about to get a bit more challenging, so hope that’s ok too.

    “I don’t think this can be done, either with the creationist’s ludicrous approach or by your more subtle arguments.”

    I don’t think they are that subtle, probably just different to the standard Christian arguments put forward.

    Subtle or no, your logic is not at all convincing.

    “Not being able to explain something provides NO support for a deity.”

    Yes, but it is also not the condemning evidence against one that atheists presume, deferring the debate “until further notice” because of a lack of condemning evidence is more than a little unfair.

    Not until further notice, but until some shred of evidence to the contrary is presented. That this hasn’t happened you may deem unfair, but that’s no scientist’s fault.

    “Dawkins offers this thought experiment. Imagine a universe that does not have a creator. What do we understand about our own universe that would need to change in this imagined universe? The answer is nothing.”

    Well, if Dawkins created this universe he would be qualified to make that statement in honesty.

    Its a very straight forward question. The only way you can accuse him of not being honest is to show there IS something we know about our universe that would be incompatible with a universe that had no creator. I don’t think you can do this, but I await your response.

    The reality is if a “god” created this universe with all the asociated laws of physics, why would an imagined universe need to be any different than the mark 1 version?

    So? The debate here is whether science in any way offers support for the claim that there is a god. It is of course possible that there is a god that chooses to hide, but logically if science cannot discern the creator, it can not support the hypothesis that there is one. (The idea of a hidden god rather does a number on all the Abrahamic religions too but let’s not open that can of worms).

    “That is VERY wishful thinking. One by one, science has knocked down every material reason mankind has had for believing in God – I gave just a few examples above. If you want to believe nonetheless, you must do so in spite of what science is telling you.”

    Once again, science has knocked down a number of dogmatic elements due to the ignorance of people representing the church.

    I don’t think what you’re offering could possibly lead to any different conclusion that what any other Christian has offered.

    The question is were those people acurately representing the Christian faith?, and were they acurately interpreting the scriptures?.

    No, the question is does ANY representation of Christian faith at all challenge the claim that science provides no support for the existence of god? If so, show me concretely how.

    Remember, Jesus indicated the greatest oposition to truth would often come from those claiming to follow him.

    Irrelevant to this discussion (not that I accept it as true).

    I would suggest some of those pushing creation science are the modern day equivalent, these are the people giving the likes of Dawkins the amunition he needed to inflict a seemingly devasting attack.

    Dawkins does not spend all his time on the loonies. He’s challenging you as well, as am I.

    This does not mean that science is in conflict with faith, just certain personal beliefs of those claiming to beleive.

    You have provided no convincing evidence that this is true.

    I must confess Valis, I am not really your typical Christian, I don’t fit in well with much of “organised religion” I have been accused of being a “revolutionary” with some of my ideas (or even just questions!), and they weren’t being nice! :)

    I appreciate that, and probably wouldn’t be spending my time debating with you if it weren’t the case. But it is not relevant to my argument.

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

  230. # Kevin Hague Says:
    April 27th, 2009 at 11:57 am

    “There certainly was a group of missionaries advocating the position you outline Shunda, but the larger group saw their ‘mission’ as twofold: bringing both religion and ‘civilisation’.”

    Keep in mind that the missionaries observed cannibalism and slavery etc.

    “And by the way, the idea that the Treaty was exceptional and an act of enlightened practice by the Crown has been comprehensively dispelled by David Williams, amongst others. Treaties were standard colonising practice, usually followed by build-up of military force and then historical amnesia.”
    ———-
    “Williams’ concern for the welfare of the Maori reflected that of the evangelicals in England. There the Aboriginal Protection Society had a major influence on foreign policy toward indigenous peoples (Orange, 1987:2). Indeed, high officials in the British Foreign Office, including Lord Glenelg, the Secretary of State for Colonies, had evangelical leanings and were sympathetic to the Maori, and averse to the plans of the New Zealand Company to colonise New Zealand (ibid. 25f). As Rogers (1973:163) comments, “Williams needed no urging of authority to play his part” in assisting with the Treaty process. After all, he had supported Governor Fitzroy in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence (1835), had written to the CMS in England in 1838 that “[t]he English government should take charge of the country, as the Guardians of New Zealand and …the chiefs should be incorporated into a

    General Assembly, under the guidance of certain officers, with a military force” (ibid.). He also protested against the lawlessness of the European element in New Zealand.

    Williams was responsible for translating the Treaty, and acted as a key negotiator of the Treaty. It is now fashionable to suggest that he did this maliciously. Before assuming this to be the case, consider:

    * The character of the man, and his mana among the Maori of the day. As one writer comments, “He had won the respect and admiration of the Maori people, and no man had greater mana than he. It was said of him that he had only to have lifted his little finger and the Treaty of Waitangi would not have been signed” (Rogers, 1973:17).
    * The difficulty of translating an English legal document into Maori. As Williams commented, “It was necessary to avoid all expressions of the English for which there was no expressive term in the Maori, preserving entire the spirit and tenor of the Treaty” (cited in Carleton, 1874:312). Much as Williams was extremely fluent in te reo, having lived among the Maori for some 17 years, it is quite a challenge to translate legalese from one language into another.
    * The tight schedule. He had only a few days in early February 1840 to complete the task.
    * His implicit faith in the integrity of the British crown. He honestly believed that the Treaty would be honoured, and lived out his days protesting against abuses of it. He developed the Covenant (kawenata) concept of the Treaty to which the Maori attach(ed) such significance (Orange, 1987:90).
    * Subsequent to signing the Treaty, Williams was engaged in taking it around the country to get additional signatures. Far from this being a token gesture, it was seen to be necessary if the Treaty, an agreement between two sovereign peoples, was to have effect.
    * The context of the Treaty: the missionaries saw it as a protection for the Maori, indeed as a way to forestall the wholesale colonisation of the country and dispossession of the Maori. In the face of the arrival of the New Zealand Company ship Tory there was incredible time pressure to get the job done.

    As an aside, the hostile relationship between the officers of the New Zealand Company, who claimed to have purchased large chunks of the North Island, and the missionaries, is well documented. At one time, Henry Williams had purchased some 60 acres of land in the heart of what would become Wellington, to hold it in trust for the Maori, lest the New Zealand Company dispossess the local Maori. This earned him the wrath of the New Zealand Company Director William Wakefield. In a subsequent acrimonious meeting between Wakefield and Williams, “Wakefield …..”

    http://www.rcnzonline.com/fnf/a99.htm

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

  231. “Williams had, prior to 1840, acquired around 11,000 acres at a cost of £1,722. This land was then vested in the names of his children, for whom he, as a missionary in a far away country, had to make provision. As he had eleven children, and given the marginal productivity of the land, the area was not excessive, and his claims were upheld by law. It must also be noted that no Maori seller ever contested any of these transactions even when the Governor solicited complaints from the Maori (Rutherford, 1961:136)”

    The love of the Maori for Karuwha (four eyes!) or Te Wiremu, as they called him, is exemplified by the memorial that they erected for him near his home in Pakaraka which reads:
    A memorial to Henry Williams

    A token of love to him from the Maori Church

    He was a father indeed to all the tribes
    A courageous man who made peace in the Maori wars

    For 44 years he sowed the Good News in this island

    He came in the year 1823

    He was taken away in the year 1867

    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>