What I am observing is that there is a treaty. Has nothing to do with what Maori are capable of, has to do with their contractual rights which have been honored in the breach by “paternalistic” Pakeha more often than not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

SPC
“In any case iwi and whakapapa is not about race but ancestry. ”

the grievances don’t dye out with time or genetic dilution.

Imagine how many people were devastated by Ghengis Khan: the Mongols killed every living thing even though they had never had any contact with a group previously.

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

SPC:
“In the Treaty Maori were promised chieftainship – effectively iwi self-government. This was not possible after their land was confiscated. In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.”

Remind me: how much was actual confiscation and how much was sold? We keep hearing this short cut to the truth. In addition the treaty guarantees forests and fisheries and so even if farmland is lost to iwi there are still the national parks , and foreshore, sea beds and fisheries (oceans).

“In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.”

You could say it goes some way towards fulfilling the treaty but that doesn’t make it ideal (unless you assume Maori have more to offer due to some X factor absent in other races living here).

“As for immigrants, many get that respect for the indigenous people and culture, so the idea that immigrants will side with the majority Pakeha in developing an assimilationist concept of a common New Zealandness is inaccurate.”

why should immigrants have a superior respect for Maori culture rather than any other? For example the Shetland women knitted a shawl that could be threaded through the wedding ring, then there is the Japanese tea ceremony and tea house etc, etc

” Most immigrants recognise that respect for a bi-cultural nation-hood is part of the same impulse which enables our tolerance for a multi-cultural society, one that they can participate in most comfortably.”

On the other hand they may see biculturalism as an airy-fairy political construct.

Like or Dislike: 2  1 (+1)

In the Treaty Maori were promised chieftainship – effectively iwi self-government. This was not possible after their land was confiscated. In effect the Maori seats became their participation in our democratic self-government – and are a de facto form of continuing chieftainship – albeit in a regional pan-iwi form.

The principle of this is the reason for the advocacy of Maori representation on councils – though many use a consultative process to give effect to this instead.

The Treaty recognised a bi-cultural aspect to our nation-hood. As for immigrants, many get that respect for the indigenous people and culture, so the idea that immigrants will side with the majority Pakeha in developing an assimilationist concept of a common New Zealandness is inaccurate. Most immigrants recognise that respect for a bi-cultural nation-hood is part of the same impulse which enables our tolerance for a multi-cultural society, one that they can participate in most comfortably.

The real debate about the future of Maori seats (and other forms of representation) is how the National Party see the future of the electorate seats after the Treaty process concludes. They have declared an intent to abolish the seats when this happens. But how long before that stage is reached is now the issue. Labour has said that it’s for Maori to determine when they want to end the separate seats. It is a truism that the seats only exist while Maori choose to go on the Maori electorate rolls rather than the General electorate rolls.

Like or Dislike: 1  2 (-1)

That’s a poor news report samiam – the DNA evidence traces our heritage back to a group of men who left Africa c50,000 years ago, not one man. And those men had African ancestors (back to homo sapiens born over a 100,000 years earlier) whose descendants remained in Africa (which is why there is greater genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world).

In any case iwi and whakapapa is not about race but ancestry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Indeed, Greenflew

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Or for that matter, samiam, that of a chimpanzee and yours!

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

I see on the news they have traced the Y chromosome of ALL men back to one man 60,000 years ago. Whats so different between my whakapapa and yours? Very little, it would appear.
Those that seek racist priority in (otherwise) democracy, seem to want to choose ancestry that is not too new…and not too old… but just right.
Tossers!

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

I heard Metria on The Panel, Afternoon’s with Jim Moira. She criticized Phil Goff/ labour and got away with the “Maori just wanted their day in court… and i don’t think they would have got the vast stretches of coastline ” [my recollection], however read Kevin Hague above and consider this:

A FORESHORE PRIMER

Prepared by Te Hau Tikanga – The Maori Law Commission.

This Primer canvasses some of the questions being raised in the current debate about the foreshore and seabed. It is based upon common concerns expressed by Maori over a course of Crown action that has already been labelled a new confiscation and which raises serious constitutional issues about the true nature of the Treaty relationship.

* Is this debate a new issue?

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

So it’s a Treaty issue then?

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

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

* Why has the debate become so prominent only recently?

The Court of Appeal decided on June 26 that the eight Iwi in Marlborough could have their claim to their stretch of foreshore and seabed heard in the Maori Land Court.

* Was the case decided as a Treaty issue?

No. The Court considered the matter as a common law issue because English and colonial law had long ago decided that “aboriginal” or “customary rights and title” continued after the Crown had established a colony.

The Court decided that it was the job of the Maori Land Court to define what they were.

* Are these common law “customary rights and title” the same as those claimed by Iwi before 1840?

No. There are similarities but the major difference is that the extent and nature of the common law version is actually defined by the Crown which has also assumed a right to extinguish or remove them.

What may be called the tipuna or Maori law version was defined by Maori – thus for example only Nga Puhi could define their rights and title and certainly no other Iwi had any right to extinguish them.

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

Like or Dislike: 1  1 (0)

Kevin Hague Says:

This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.

It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.

Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.

As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.

This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.

Like or Dislike: 0  2 (-2)

BJ
“The notion that the numbers of immigrants, or relative numbers of Pakeha and others, has a bearing on the treaty itself has to be regarded as nonsense legally.”

Perhaps then this reflects on the quality of the treaty? If it means that Maori own all the beaches and seas around (NZ/ “Aotearoa”) and we introduce a land tax at x to X% and if we have a department of culture and compulsory this and that and (say) a parliament of 51% Maori MP’s well tough?

BJ
“I never said it would not interfere.. it doesn’t matter if it interferes. It exists. My word is my bond.”

But what did you agree to (or were you coerced by circumstance)? It was unrealistic to expect that powersharing could be agreed to prior to colonisation and it is unrealistic to suggest that even the most liberal in the foreign office would have expected British citizens to be subject to tinorangitiratanga.

If you were a missionary (or Hobson) did you actually present the whys and wherefores? You had to travel for months and if you didn’t get agreement how long would it have taken you (if ever) to get a meaningful agreement on power sharing?
Was it ever considered that “oh by the way, you’ll soon be vastly out numbered”… of course not.
I would call the Foriegn Office (at the time) “do gooders”* and I would attach the same label to the Green Party for their stand on the foreshore and seabed [not that the Marxists are do gooders they want to exploit dissent].

*naive idealist

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I recall Valis saying “you don’t have to go all the way back to 1840″ but in order to satisfy the treaty to the letter…

How’s that different from going back to 1840?

Sorry, but the “contract” is unfulfillable. It cannot be honoured because there is no end game in the treaty contract. It can in fact never be fully implemented.

A perfectly posited worst case interpretation designed to ensure the perception of certain failure before even taking the first step.

So do you keep the “contract” alive that cannot ever be honoured, settled or met? Or do you renegiotiate a new constitution?

Depends on how sincere you are when you “renegotiate”.

Like or Dislike: 2  2 (0)

Like or Dislike: 5  1 (+4)

Like or Dislike: 5  2 (+3)

Thanks for the kick-start Mark, I’m off!
‘cold appendage’ – too good!
I’m laying down my quill – it’s gone all soggy.

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

Shame to see such an energised debate being moiled my fetid tempers.
It’s motorcycle weather Fly; what say the Gaga’s go remove the ‘No Junk Mail’ Stickers off a few letterboxes eh?
We’ll show ‘em – la frere grandee and he of the cold appendage….eh?

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

How about this:

An environmentalist dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an environmentalist — you’re in the wrong place.” Thinking that heaven could never make an error, the environmentalist reports to the gates of hell and is let in.

Pretty soon, the environmentalist gets dissatisfied with the environment in hell, and starts implementing eco-friendly improvements. After a while, global warming, air and water pollution are under control. The landscape is covered with grass and plants, the food is organic and the people are happy. The environmentalist has become a pretty popular guy.

One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?” Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve clean air and water, the temperature is better and the food tastes better, and there’s no telling what this environmentalist is going to fix next.”

God replies, “What??? You’ve got an environmentalist? That’s a mistake – he should never have gotten down there; send him up here.” Satan says, “No way. I like having an environmentalist on the staff, and I’m keeping him.” God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.” Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?”

Like or Dislike: 4  4 (0)

No, no really BluePeter, you’re a riot. The way you use words to cause hilarity, it’s special! I’m reminded of one of the Marx Brothers…Harpo, I think it was.

Like or Dislike: 3  3 (0)

Poor little gweenie

Life is just so unfair!

Like or Dislike: 3  7 (-4)

Bro and BluePeter – your use of belittling names for Maori and Greens is hilarious! I can barely contain my mirth. You’re both top-notch comedians in my book! Thanks for all the laughs!

Like or Dislike: 3  3 (0)