Poor ol’ frog
Thanks to those who have made comments about the state of this blog. I’ve been away enjoying New Zealand’s wonderful natural environment (without internet access!) for the last five days. Perhaps I should have explained this before I left, but I had been hoping to sneak in a couple of updates, which didn’t eventuate.
Regardless, some very valid points have been raised. During the election campaign last year, frog was a prolific and useful resource, but for a number of reasons the blog is a different beast now and we haven’t maintained that energy. We’re having a think about how we can remedy this, and would like to hear more feedback (of the constructive rather than damning kind please, a rather battered frog begs!). What would you like to see here? More comment from MPs? From Co-Leaders? More opinion? Or more party updates?
In the meantime, I’ll keep the content as current as possible, and please keep the comments, suggestions for posts, and debate coming - they’re what make the blog work, when it does!
October 4th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Interweb ‘obligations’ should never come before enjoyment of the NZ outdoors.
How about an actual forum on the Greens site? With threads like…
“Helen in Cheney’s pocket”
“Party support beyond genx - turning the boomers green”
“The climate change thread”
“Oestradiol in my quarter pounder?”
“Is Russell’s great-coat made of organic wool?”
“CTL versus Powelliphanta”
“Can deep aquifers and intensive dairying co-exist?”
“The peak oil thread”
“The corporatisation of organics thread”
A forum would only need casual moderating, not constant input like a blog.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Frogblog is my homepage and I look forward to the links to topical sites, and the regular updates on relevant happenings. I like the blog the way it is, but more often would keep me more informed and more up to date! I do agree that everyone is entitled to a break in the down times; I also get Russell Brown’s Hard News emails and they help fill the gaps.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:00 am
frog said…
“..What would you like to see here? More comment from MPs? From Co-Leaders? More opinion? Or more party updates?..”
yes please…all of those…
plus creative use of sound/vid…
the greens need to ineract with their poitical audience..
and you have the forum here for that..at your fingertips..
the greens could/should be driving the news/commentary…
not just reacting to it…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(..btw…what happened to my ‘bullsh*t comment..(from sunday.i think..)..?
October 4th, 2006 at 11:06 am
There is already a forum on the Green party website (party members only).
During the election last year the stuff I really enjoyed reading was the analysis of what parties were doing and how the electorate was responding to various campaigns. But I reckon frogblog is in good heart - blogs always ebb and flow at times - and yes, holidays are important so don’t apologise for them!
October 4th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I agree with kane9 - allowing the readers to start our own discussion threads would inject a lot of energy I suspect.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I’d like to see FrogBlog maintain its energy as an informal information release about all things green. It’s not as if there’s nothing going on in parliament outside of election time; and the blog is easier to read than the press releases. It’s great to get a green perspective on current events by coming here, so keep it up.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
yes stephen..the ‘members only’ is the issue…
if you want the echo chamber/preaching to the converted model…you are ok…
but i think the idea is to get ‘the message’ out there..eh stephen…?
and you think frogblog is in ‘good heart’..?
(i don’t think i want you as my doctor..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 4th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
i like the fact-intense entries, like the one about new nuclear technology & the one about the new airship design.
sorry i don’t like audio/video or even too many photographs, too slow. (be resource conscious!)
October 4th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
The ‘echo chamber’ comment is somewhat ironic coming from you phil. If the goal is ‘getting the mesage out there’ I’m not sure that an e-forum, private or public, is the most effective model - perhaps some good old, on the street face to face organising. But I’m not sure that is the primary goal of a forum; rather perhaps a place to explore and debate ideas - in which case a members only forum makes sense in some instances.
Oh, and I agree with Andrew about keeping the vids and audio to a minimum - they are a pain sometimes even if on broadband.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
The moderated forum concept with ‘register to post’ has proven itself to be a very effective way of sharing ideas and reaching new people if advertised and promoted in the right way. While a blog is a great window into pertinent issues, it is a narrow one compared to that provided by an effectively limitless web of contributors.
The Frog blog should run in tandem… to provide its valuable party/political insight. An open forum would release the pressure.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
I don’t get the Press regularily but one thing that has struck me lately is a case of corruption re school building contracts that didn’t seem to make much of a ripple and also the number of people writing about the way the CCC lets people bend/break the rules (property investors). I suspect there is a lot of angst about what is happening on the property scene.
phil u. Says:
October 4th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
if you want the echo chamber/preaching to the converted model…you are ok…
but i think the idea is to get ‘the message’ out there..eh stephen…?
I agree. In an online forum ideas are presented and frozen and people with other ideas can challenge them. I believe that the best idea should win eventually. One idea that needs clarification is the linking of the far left to the environmental movement. I don’t dissagree with a move to the left eg against consumerism and greed; but I don’t trust the Eric Honecker type thinking of the some of the MP’s the party has inherited. The world needs serious thinkers with the ability to look from all angles
Henry
October 4th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Replace the poor ol’ frog picture with Hypnotoad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotoad#Hypnotoad). That will win new readers–Hypnotoad commands it.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
stephen..not quite sure what you mean by echo chamber..in that context..
(in blog terms it usually means a group of people who just sit around nodding in agreement..(and will brook no dissent..)
(c.f…sir humphreys..and auckland green party meetings..)
please excuse my ignorance stephen..and if you could explain your attempted insult…?..ta..!
and um..you’ve already got your members only forum/(echo chamber)…(off you go..!…)
and no..this isn’t instead of any other work at getting the message out..it’s as well as..stephen..
got that..?..
(i mean..why use pens when a burnt stick will do..eh stephen..?..)
oh..as for your moan about sound and vids..?
get on broadband…and then don’t link to them if you don’t want to..
got that ..?..stephen..?
aside from all that..what you had to say/contribute was very valuable..
and thank you for that input…
do you have any positive ideas..?..stephen..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 4th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
and as for the immediacy of this new world..
in the last little while i’ve linked to such interesting vids as the channel four doco on the pope/child abuse cover up story..(48 hours after the screening..you can watch it online..and make your own mind up..!..)
i’ve linked to the full speechs of the presidents/leaders of countries of interest to the u.n.
the full caning/flaying of that fox correspondent by bill clinton.
this is just a few of the vid links i’ve posted in the last couple of weeks…
am i the only one blown away by the empowerment of us all by these technological/acess to information/ideas advances..?
this is part of the reason i get so concerned about the chronic under-use of these marvels…
by what is meant to be a thoroughly modern party…
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
(b.t.w….(as was asked)..about that ‘power-coat’/armour russel norman drapes himself in..?
it is organic wool…?..willingly given by sheep that lived a long happy life..?..and died in their sleep..?..of natural causes…..?..eh..?..)
.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:25 am
frog et al:
I find frogblog well worth persevering with.
It is almost always a friendly place for Greens, and visitors, to contribute and discuss issues in an intelligent and “civilized” manner. (This, makes it very different from many other blogs which, in contrast, seem like “immature testosterone fests” and “pissing contests”.)
It is interesting to see the way in which many newcomers change their ways in response to the friendly atmosphere here, and then continue to take part in ongoing discusions.
The Green Party’s “Members Only Forum” has a different purpose.
Surely if some of us make a point of sending in interesting / appropriate material (or leads to appropriate material), frog’s job would be less arduous and the blog more interesting and effective.
I, for one, would be willing to send in stuff on a regular basis.
I prefer it when there are (on average) several new items each week … About one a day (say five reasonably discussion-worthy articles per week?)
AND I think it would be safer for frogblog to stay under the guidance of frog, with help from us in the form of suggested topics and contributions of discussion-worthy material … this way it would remain focussed on Green issues.
eredwen
October 5th, 2006 at 12:27 am
To go to a moderated forum Frog is going to have to have new software, and there’s going to be a bit of a teething period I have no doubt, but it is probably the best of the possible changes mentioned so far.
I haven’t noticed that a separate blog is required for the folks who have the moderators seat. They have the ability to introduce threads and new information same as everyone else. The only time that I’ve seen it needed was for members who, for whatever reason, found the posting limitations onerous and wanted to talk about stuff outside the forum’s owners interests.
People who post a lot might consider sub-forums on their topics of interest. The model I recommend is that taken on by the folks at “The Motley Fool” which is one of the places I do hang out regularly…
Boards to the left of me (actually none of those) , Boards to the right of me… (I am trying to work out a good way to finish this thought)
Anyway, in the meantime, the fool is a registration site. Free for those who nail up a lot of traffic and get a lot of rec’s. I dunno who pays for the bandwidth here, in the States you have to pay for bandwidth on the server and bandwidth for your pipe into it, but not for total usage.
I suggest a minimum of three sub-forums, “Global Warming”, “Peak Oil” and “Frog’s Political Swamp”…. that’s a minimum!
http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?mid=24660160&bid=116214
Also of note on the fool are the system of recommendations, the “ignored” (You can ignore people and/or threads) and “favorite” lists.
http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?mid=24656096&bid=117597
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=24656096
And before I forget, a bit of a note from the BBC
I’m afraid it’s a video and so not very accessible to the bandwidth challenged population of this benighted isle but it appeared to be a rather interesting bit.
http://www.randomvariable.co.uk/blog/2006/10/01/bbc-newsnight-on-exxon mobils-dirty-tactics/
respectfully
BJ
October 5th, 2006 at 2:47 am
it seems to me…that the trouble with assisting frog by sending in suggested links for posts is…if frog has barely enough time to post a couple of times a week now, s/he’s not going to spend time sifting through all our kind suggestions. i’ve tried sending links in the past, no response, iirc.
i cannot see how this can work without switcing to a volunatry team effort to run it (versus the one-paid-staff-member model we now have). it seems the current frog-in-cheif has barely a few minutes a week to spend running the thing. hardly the resources to set the nz web zeitgeist on fire, is it?
so, why not trash the wordpress, and jump-start a php forum, eh?
October 5th, 2006 at 7:15 am
botman Says: Replace the poor ol’ frog picture with Hypnotoad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotoad#Hypnotoad). That will win new readers–Hypnotoad commands it.
But then it would be toadblog, which would change the whole character of it. Frogs are (primarily) from the family Radinae. Toads are from the family Bufonidae.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:57 am
bj:
I can see you have big plans …
Two points to consider:
1. Be careful not to include “geting to know you” diversions in your proposed “posting limitations”. These “diversions” can be an important part of effective communication, especially as many relationships here are (ideally) ongoing.
“Green” has broader dimensions than you often seem to acknowledge (or, perhaps, understand), and in this regard the Greens on the blog are effective in moderating the tone and content of the blog overall.
Possibly some of the “diversions” could also be a result of the recent lack of new material to discuss.
2. A considerable number of readers/contributors here have much less than “state of the art” computer systems. I’m FOURTH in the bump down system in our now-scattered family, and get a system made from the “best available” components among the leftovers when those ahead of me upgrade (which happens seldom among my impecunious young adults!) Currently I must rely on text, as I can’t fully access the audio and video clips offered.
October 5th, 2006 at 11:17 am
The thing I like about the current format is precisely that we don’t get flooded with new topics. There is time for the comments and discussion to develop. That said, there have been times when I wanted to add a topic myself, but don’t feel it’s appropriate to side-track an existing thread.
So my two cents worth - keep the existing format, but perhaps Frog needs to recruit a tadpole or two to help with the moderation? Then we could send in suggestions without overwhelming Frog.
Re the broadband issue - surely we are talking about LINKS to content in posts. If you don’t like video or big pictures, then don’t follow the link…
October 5th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I fully support a move to a php-type discussion forum. I think this will allow a much broader and deeper range of discussion to occur, rather than the point-counterpoint type debate which is endemic to blog-type formats. Moderation is easier, referencing older posts is easier, and new content can be easily added by all (still under the auspices of one or more moderators).
DenMT
October 5th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Eredwen
Agreed, The limitations are generally up to the moderator… I in no way would say what they should or shouldn’t be. Nor does the subforum organization seem to detract.. it rather helps us keep on topic at the fool.
As for the video content, that’s almost completely verboten. You can link to it but you can’t (are not allowed to) put a picture in either.
So some of what Frog does here in terms of pictures of Arnie or Taser Protests or naked Solar Panels goes away.
The only thing you’d need is decently recent software… which is (bless the Open Source Community) free to download and available on CD for a pittance.
The nice thing about the format is the new topics get browsed and not all of them need be read… and if someone annoys you enough you can ignore everything they say until you get tired of being annoyed. I expect I’d spend a fair few days in a few P-boxes… but that’s OK. It actually helps the system.
respectfully
BJ
October 5th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
I can certainly understand the desire of some of the commentators above to have a greater input and more flexiblity in their discussions about the greens/the environment/frog/politics in general et al. Certainly a shift to a php (or whatever) forum would enable this.
There’s certainly nothing stopping a motivated individual starting something like this in an afternoon if they so chose. Perhaps someone should if they feel strongly about it.
But I read frog as it is the Green party blog. It’s not the voice of the party per se, but it is one organ that the party uses to communicate with it’s base, the public at large, and if you’ll excuse the clunky cliche, the blogosphere. Frog has, at times, become an integral part of NZ’s intellectual and political landscape. It’d be certainly sad to see the departure of Frog from our screens - it’d leave Rodders as the only daily political blogger, and his posts are frequently nothing more than a link to whatever local rag is covering his dacing/swimming/endless-selfpromotional-gimmick on that particular day of the week.
Granted I’d love to see a bit more vitality in the old frog pages, but I can understand that the dizzying heights of frog’s first election year certainly wont be met when there’s such little actual meat in the NZ political scene at the moment.
Anyway, my post was simply to say that there’s nothing to stop anyone forming any sort of community to allow serious debate and discussion on anything that they chose. It’d just be a shame to see the Greens abandon such a useful and unique communication tool in the NZ political landscape.
October 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
taranaki said…
“..- it’d leave Rodders as the only daily political blogger..”
i think you need to get out and about a bit more..
on the right there is david farrar/sir humphry..
on the left.whoar and public address etc..
taranaki said..
“..when there’s such little actual meat in the NZ political scene at the moment…”
um..even more evidence you need to get out from behind those taranki fences a bit more..
this is a time of major domestic and international flux…
on both geo-political and environmental fronts…
we have a generational change coming up in most of our political parties..(inc greens)..
a national party (soon to be) veering back to the centre ground..
a labour party floundering around over on the right…seemingly totally blind to the sea-changes in attitude to climate-change going on all around them..
(well..the party leadership anyway..i’m sure it’s a different story further down in the ranks..)
and a party in big trouble when national passes them by on their way back to the centre..
a global housing bubble about to burst..(led by america)..
and a rapidly deteriorating environment..brought about by the wholesale exploitation of animals and environment in search of the dollar..
and you..taranaki.. see “..such little actual meat in the NZ political scene at the moment..”
are we inhabiting parallel universes here..?..taranaki..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 5th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Taranaki:
Well said! I agree totally.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Phil, you missed the point. Frog is one of two blogs that come from Parliament, and imho is the better than Rodney Hide’s.
Yes Phil, we certainly are in parrallel universes. I also don’t see any significant policy discussion on the floor of parliament nor in the media, and this seems to be a prevailing view at the moment, especially amongst the smaller parties such as the Greens. I wouldn’t call the redundant scrapping over election spending, affairs and rumours of sexuality important to our nation, yet the dailies have fed us a diet of almost nothing but for the last few weeks.
The one thing I’d really like frog to do is bring in closer moderation of style. Other forums I visit demand that users adhere to basic standards of grammar and punctuation, and it certainly makes it easier for everyone to read.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I personally would like to see threads initiated by, and occasionally followed-up by, MPs. It would give us the opportunity to listen carefully to what they are doing in Parliament and provide a little feedback.
I would focus mostly on MPs because they are the ones who can submit a bill, who have speaking privileges in the House, have portfolios and may one day be ministers in a coalition government…
Personally, I like the blog format where a paid staffer puts out the topic of the day. If necessary, of course, it is always possible to have both a blog and a forum.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
taranaki..said..
“..Other forums I visit demand that users adhere to basic standards of grammar and punctuation, and it certainly makes it easier for everyone to read…”
oh anal-retentive one…!…please rule us/show us the way…!
in just that one (sniffy/censorious) sentence..you have defined all that is wrong with moderation/censorship..other peoples ’standards’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
oh..and if you find it difficult to read anything apart/different from your ’standards’..don’t try..eh..?
and please…don’t go near poetry..eh..?
it’ll fry your linear brain..
October 5th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
think the Frog Blog is great Frog. Isn’t it the political site with the most hits? Kind of says it all really.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I would like to see what POLICIES that are being debated in parliament,
especially the ones about the environment in which i LIVE.
http://forum.greens.org.nz/ ‘members only’ do have they something to hide??? = http://forum.greens.org.nz/office/join.htm (Object not found!) typical slackers
get on broadband…and then don’t link to them if you don’t want to.. = We can’t all get on broadband cause of the governemts inaction on rural broadband. I can’t use Video so don’t even bother except maybe old provivo
It seems the greens are being dulled down lead by Keith Locke who talks more about single people and saids nothing of global warming or the environment hes a racist he hates all New Zealanders and thinks everyone else in the 3rd world deserves to take over our country.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:52 am
The trouble with a lot of discussions on these bloggs (where the topic is a bit involved (race, poverty, income distribution) is that it is like trying to count the carriages on a passing train (unless you have the time to sit down and do a lot of spade work or are already an expert).
I would like to see an argument summarie, like a wikipaedia; brief summaries of arguments with links and contra arguments, as part of our political system. Politicians use sound bites, double speak, rhetoric, media bias, product advertising, “no comment”, fast interviews, obsufacation, 90 page reports etc to keep the bullshit alive. We ought to be able to see a logical construct for every problem we face.
Henry
October 6th, 2006 at 7:34 am
of course…one other way to crack open the doors..and let some light in and out..
would be to move that closed forum to an open forum..
i mean..(as noted) what the hell have you/the greens got to hide..?
will free/open debate cause the walls to fall down..?
answer..”..no..!..”
i repeat..what are the greens ’scared’ of..?
and isn’t free speech/debate part of the green ethos..?
how about ‘walkin’ the walk’..?..eh…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 6th, 2006 at 8:26 am
estatek says:
“It seems … the greens are being dulled down lead by Keith Locke who talks more about single people and saids nothing of global warming or the environment … ”
That is because Keith IS NOT the Spokesperson on Global Warming and Environment.
and …”hes a racist he hates all New Zealanders and thinks everyone else in the 3rd world deserves to take over our country.”
(I’m not sure of your logic here, but … That is because Keith IS the Spokesperson in some of those areas.)
Whatever Keith does or doesn’t say on these matters it is in his role as Spokesperson for the Green Party and is based on Party Policy which is decided on by the members of the Green Party.
(Nice try! … but check the Green website for details about who speaks for the Greens on which topics before sounding off! )
October 6th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Taranaki says:
“The one thing I’d really like frog to do is bring in closer moderation of style. Other forums I visit demand that users adhere to basic standards of grammar and punctuation, and it certainly makes it easier for everyone to read.”
I take your point!
However, if this is a gentle dig at our inimitable friend “phil_u” I’d like to point out that Greens are a diverse and tolerant lot and it is up to individual readers to ignore contributions that they find too hard to read, and to omment on this to the writer concerned.
One thing most of us DO NOT tolerate is “ad hominem” attacks and “put downs”. It is the readers/writers who make frogblog a friendly place to be.
October 6th, 2006 at 9:47 am
No, please don’t do anything like is suggested above. I’m having enough trouble getting people to believe there is no such thing as climate change and that Maori are not indigenous, without the Greens improving their communications to further spread their lies.
At least Dianne still believes me, although I’m starting to get a bit worried about Je Lan.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Dr Dunny Brush … spreading a little sunshine in our lives!
October 6th, 2006 at 10:42 am
>eredwen Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 8:26 am
>Whatever Keith does or doesn’t say on these matters it is in his role as Spokesperson for the Green Party and is based on Party Policy which is decided on by the members of the Green Party.
We’ll yeah, but didn’t the present Green Party form as a sort of alliance and isn’t it a chimera of reds and Greens (”water melon”). The socialist argument re the environment or social justice for that matter has not been won except in the narrow confines of a small percentage of the population. many people say they would vote Green “but for”.. the scary far left.
Dr Dunny Brush Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 9:47 am
>I’m having enough trouble getting people to believe there is no such thing as climate change and that Maori are not indigenous,
Turiana T was outraged at what Brash said: he crossed the PC line; after all her Dad was an American serviceman and her mother (presumably) of mixed race. Inter-marriage is a great peace maker. In Fiji because of Hindi(?) their isn’t a lot of intermarriage, (by way of comparison).
[This thread could go on and on….]
Henry
October 6th, 2006 at 11:17 am
hey all,
been busy myself lately, not to mention not allowed on the puter ‘cos my offspring take over the phoneline during the school holidays…
This has been very interesting to read, maybe frog should have regular breaks which would make us all comment on some deeply thought out issues, rather than just having a poke at the scandal of the day!
BJ, I like your ideas about how to get topical involvement on this blog. May I humbly beg you to register on the forums as a member, it would make the traffic there so much more enlightening. And I hate to see a good mind wasted!
The issue of broadband access for the far-flung parts of our country (never mind Mt Eden’s bandwidth issues…) is something that we could all moan about for months and still not see anything happen, until the next time Telecom has their hand forced. There are many ISP’s running the best service that they are allowed to run, and hopefully the service will improve by a factor of 10 once the LLU kicks in next year. Not holding my breath, tho’!!!
Meantime, keep posting the links, everyone, and here’s a tip I’ve picked up from my younger, better-travelled friends: Internet cafes usually run broadband on at least one terminal, so if surfing from your workplace is against your principles, try a quick lunchtime jaunt amongst the backpackers and have a look at some of the interessting things that the average home pc/mac on dialup won’t access.
cheers, katie
October 6th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
OK Henry,
I’ll indulge in your Kiwi “tittle tattle” of who used to be this or that and therefore must think this way or that way… and let’s NOT accept that intelligent people are the sum of their parts (with histories and experiences in context with the times) and thus they can come up with their own “wholeness”… and therefore the Greens MUST be fractured into “red” and “green” in some sort of uneasy alliance … and labels put onto people must be assumed to be accurate (with no ulterior motives from the labellers of course) … and pigs MIGHT fly??
You are either an excellent stirrer, or you really do believe all that stuff!
(I’d suspect that you haven’t spent much time at Green events and discussions?)
Please remember that Aotearoa/NZ is a small place (which, within living memory, used to be much smaller).
Try a few names out on your friends, acquaintances and relatives, and someone will know someone who is related to someone who knows someone else …
Let’s talk about Keith Locke and his roots, and let’s put it in context.
I come from Christchurch. My father knew Keith Locke’s father in the RNZAF at Wigram during WW2. He was a gentle, peaceful and intelligent idealist.
Remember that we were fighting a War “against right wing Fascists”. The Russians were our Allies, millions of their people died in that War. Some of our thinkers of that time (during and following the “Great Depression) had become “Communists” which had not yet become a “dirty word”. Apparently Jack Locke was one of them (as was another friend of ours who was and remained a respected Canterbury University Professor.)
Keith Locke’s mother Elsie Lock was a well respected member of the community. She was very active in the Peace movement and a successful author of children’s books. Each of the Locke children were talented, community minded and well respected. Keith was one of them.
Keith is a Green. I am a Green. I come from parents who came from conservative families. My parents were school teachers during the Great Depression. They saw the poverty among the families of the children they taught and BOTH of them became foundation members of the Labour Party.
Intelligent and caring people react to events of the time and they may react politically. Times change and their reactions change.
I joined the Values Party when it was formed, because of what I saw happening in the World.
I now belong to the Green Party for similar (but more urgent) reasons. The Green Party is not left or right it is GREEN. Many Green Party policies seem closer to red thinking than blue, but they are on a different continuum called GREEN. Believe me, Keith is a Green! and we are proud to have him!
October 6th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Henry:
I believe that Don Brash would have done well in the old South Africa, except that there the equivalent of Tariana’s descendants would have been “Black” into eternity even if they mated with bonafide “Whites” all that time.
As far as inheritance is concerned, a couple of questions for the learned Doctor Brash:
1. How “Royal” is the Queen … Prince Charles … Prince William? (and who cares?)
2. Should the Pakeha land holders of original farms and stations be asked to meet the same criteria that Brash is hinting at for Maori. (There would have to be a considerable amount of inbreeding within families to ensure the “purity” of the lines … The mind boggles!)
and two general question:
3. Is this guy really the total dawk that he seems? Or are there people out there who are greedy enough and stupid enough to swallow his arguments?
October 6th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Dunny Brush:
It has just occured to me … I hope you are not the man himself in disguise?
No, I don’t think so, YOU have a sense of humour!
October 6th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
eredwen Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
>3. Is this guy really the total dawk that he seems? Or are there people out there who are greedy enough and stupid enough to swallow his arguments?
Guilty!!
It seems strange to me when someone who is more parts European than Maori stands up and says “we are a colonised people”. I think the charge (inference) that Turiana hates is (the “F” word) … phony. That’s why Turiana got ugly the truth hurts.
Henry
October 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Henry:
Do you really think you can decide Tariana’s motives for her?
It seems to me, that is somewhat arrogant!
I supect you may be falling into the trap of equating ethnicity with inheritance?
Maori Treaty settlements are the latter.
Don Brash, hopefully, is aware of this, but likes to (or is being encouraged to) play “the race card”. It goes down well with many Asian migrants.
To highlight this difference, I used the old question “how royal is the Queen” the answer is not very at all … but she still qualifies for the job because of one identifiable ancestor (provided of course his wife was telling the truth way back then!)
Hopefully we will continue to “allow” people of Maori descent to decide their ethnic affiliation in their own country. When no one wants to take the Maori option THAT is when Maori seats should disappear etc. Put yourself a few generations into the future … would you be happy with the then majority group deciding your ethnic affiliation for you?
(Incidentally why do you think the National Party would prefer everyone to be “New Zealanders”? Nothing to do with the fact that National never gets a majority vote in those seats of course??)
Humans are complex. I believe in giving people the respect of letting then decide for themselves… and the benefit of any doubt!
To put it crudely: We pinched someone elses country.
In return we should at least give them some token respect.
eredwen
October 7th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Gettin’ back on track here…
* We have the Green members’ forum.
* We have the FrogBlog, for which we are truly thankful.
* I see a definite opportunity for a third entity : a discussion forum, with registration, open to all.
In my experience, what works is a linear format for threads (NOT a tree-based one, which encourages fragmentation). Some moderation will be required, but post-moderation should generally be enough (removing offending material).
Because it’s a lot of work to moderate and prime the pump, the moderating should be farmed out to volunteers. What can work really well (again, from long experience) is :
* Threads are created only by the overall moderator(s), when sufficient interest is expressed.
* A thread is created only if there is a volunteer thread host.
* The thread host is responsible for setting the tone and content of the thread.
* The number of simultaneous threads would be determined by traffic. Dead or dying threads would get deleted.
The function of this forum is not the same as the blog, and it should not replace the blog.
For the blog :
Guest posts would be great. But they would have to be actually posted by the guest (MP or other “celebrity”), not staff, and the guest would have to commit to spending a certain amount of time dialoguing with the punters over the following couple of days.
October 7th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Team
There is a very unique (to NZ) and specific problem… the Treaty we hold as so important to our National Identity is inherently divisive with respect to our heritage. We CANNOT adhere to the treaty without some definition of who is “Maori” and who isn’t. Some LEGAL definition.
We can work it out in terms of “blood” or use some other means of determining the answer, but there must be an answer.
Brash has a perverse taste for shoe leather, but the question is far too important for us to simply heap scorn on him for bringing it up. The manner of his expressing it is worthy of that, but the problem is far too real for all of us.
respectfully
BJ
October 7th, 2006 at 7:51 am
eredwen Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
>Henry:
>Do you really think you can decide Tariana’s motives for her?
It seems to me, that is somewhat arrogant!
>
>I supect you may be falling into the trap of equating ethnicity with inheritance?
>Maori Treaty settlements are the latter.
Tariana talks a lot about being aggrieved and affected by the actions of the colonising Europeans. Affected relates to poverty and crime etc, how is someone who has 7 European and 1 Maori ancestor affected (or aggrieved for that matter)??? It seems that a European child adopted into a Maori family would be just as disabled by colonisation. To put it another way; it’s not events that effect us but how we choose to react to them. Maori choose to be aggrieved and affected by taking on a culture of historical grievance with a thinking that says “the pakeha cut our hands off”. Modern life > the industrial system > division of labour is what contributes most to our culture; it’s not our fault either
Henry
October 7th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Imagine if Labour had a forum. Come to think of it it should be mandatory!
MP’s can pick us off one at a time at electoral offices (which is largely a pr exercise), but they couldn’t duck a forum.
Henry
October 7th, 2006 at 10:27 am
eredwen Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
>Hopefully we will continue to “allow� people of Maori descent to decide their ethnic affiliation in their own country
Hopefully someone like Don Brash will have the guts to point out the obvious.
Henry
October 8th, 2006 at 1:08 am
bj: “Maori”, as a collective term, is a post European/colonial concept.
Aoteraroa is a free country. Citizenship is not a matter of “Race”.
The Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa identify with Iwi as their basic structure. Their ancestors originally migrated to Aotearoa over a period of many years on different Waka (canoes) from different Islands in the Pacific … (and in some cases, made return journeys as well.)
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Maori language version) is the document that Iwi signed with representatives of the “British Crown”, so, in Law it is the official version.
Iwi are each named Nga, Ngai or Kai, meaning “those of”, followed by a person’s name. eg where I live, Kai (or Ngai) Tahu are “those of Tahu” (Petoki) … (and are related to Ngati Poro).
Tangata Whenua and their descendants “know who they are”. Far be it for “us” to tell them!
More later when I have checked with a well respected “old university mate of mine” who has been in the centre of all this stuff for years!
October 8th, 2006 at 7:26 am
eredwen Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
>Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Maori language version) is the document that Iwi signed with representatives of the “British Crown�, so, in Law it is the official version.
And Green Party policy is that non -Maori are “Tangata Tiriti”.
“The Green Party has clearly said, Pakeha are welcome to stay here as long as they honour [Maori version of] the treaty” Metiria Turei MP
The implications of this are vast:
Support for the ownership of the foreshore and seabed (and national parks?) by people with Maori ancestry.
Maori soveriegnty/ seperatism [Utopia/ Bosnia]
SCIENCE NOTEBOOK
Compiled from reports by Curt Suplee and Rob Stein.
Monday , March 27, 2000 ; A11
Fastest Documented Extinction
When Maori settlers arrived in New Zealand from Polynesia in the 13th
century, they were met by the sight of large, flightless birds known as
moas. The settlers quickly developed a taste for the friendly creatures,
and began killing and eating them in large numbers. Eventually, all 11
species of moa became extinct.
It has long been assumed that it took about 1,000 years for the
relatively small number of humans to completely wipe out every one of
the estimated 160,000 moas. A new analysis of bones and other evidence,
however, shows that it took less than 160 years, making the extinction
the fastest such kill-off ever documented.
Richard N. Holdaway of Palaecol Research and Christopher Jacomb of the
Canterbury Museum in Christchurch, New Zealand, who conducted the
analysis, concluded that the quick extinction was possible because of
several factors, including the creature’s low reproductive rate. The
birds, which stood more than 6 feet tall and weighed up to 440 pounds,
laid only one or two eggs at a time.
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” said
Jared Diamond of the University of California at Los Angeles in an
article accompanying the report in the March 24 issue of Science. “Then
there were no more moas; soon, there will be no more Chilean sea bass,
Atlantic swordfish, and tuna. I wonder what the Maori who killed the
last moa said. Perhaps the Polynesian equivalent of ‘Your ecological
models are untested, so conservation measures would be premature’? No,
he probably just said, ‘Jobs, not birds,’ as he delivered the fatal
blow.”
https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0003&L=ocnet-l&P=1216
October 8th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi” had a whole bunch of signatories, but in the end it divides into the crown and everyone else there…. the Maori.
The treaty provides a basic separation between those two sides, it is the basis of innumerable court case, the foreshore & seabed issue and some specific parliamentary representations. It INHERENTLY divides the two sides even as it unites them. It also begs a question that has to be answered before the law. Is this person a Maori. I could claim to be a Maori, it would not be true, but on what basis is that decided by law? Is it that if I claim to be a member of one of the signatory Iwi, they have to verify that I am in fact a member? If that is the way it works, then what happens if one of the Iwi decides to allow me to “become” Maori, for some consideration or by some ritual. Do they have records so detailed as to know all their members, even those born overseas?
My point isn’t that it is wrong to have it be so defined, but that it is necessary to define it somehow. This is what bothers the good Doctor, and while he expresses only the most obvious historical measuring stick, and in so doing deserves the beating up he’s received, it is still a problem.
The fact that the treaty divides us along these lines is also a problem, but one that we must deal with consitutionally…
Not arguing ag’n y’all that it can be self-identity within the Iwi, just pointing out that there’s a heap of difficulty stored up. This is one of the EASIER questions.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
bj,
>>”“Te Tiriti o Waitangiâ€? had a whole bunch of signatories”
No, it was signed by the British Crown’s representative and the representatives of certain iwi.
The signatories are not individuals but sovereign entities in their own right. No one has to prove they are Maori. Who belongs to an iwi is up to the iwi to decide for themselves. This has traditionally been a matter of whakapapa, but it’s not set in stone.
It only divides as much as any cortractual arrangement divides the contacting parties.
October 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
bj:
You talk about “two sides” and “us” as in (quote):
“The fact that the treaty divides “us” along these lines is also a problem.”
Having spent your formative years in a very different culture, you now live in Aotearoa by CHOICE, and have done so for a very short time (by your own admission to distance your children from the mess created in the rest of the World by the behaviour, attitudes and policies of other countries, including your country of birth).
In contrast, many of “us” Pakeha have lived in Aotearoa for generations, (my family since the 1860s.) Many of us are, or have rellies, who are part immigrant and part Tangata Whenua. You’d not always notice them on the street because they can be blond or red headed and freckled faced. (Celtic immigrant males, for example, were quick to marry Tangata Whenua females.)
It has been interesting to watch friends of mine bring their Maori ancestor(s) “out of the closet” with great pride, reconnect with the appropriate iwi (whose Kuia were often already aware of their existence!) and register on the Maori Roll. All this because of appropriate Tiriti Settlements AND because of the Maori Party in Parliament. (We can all thank the late Rod Donald (and colleages) for his vision and determination to lead us to adopt proportional voting systems … good for Greens and good for Maori and good for Aotearoa.)
Don Brash and his ilk either lack understanding and vision, OR they cynically want to see the demise of our MMP system for their own ends.
Please be very careful where you tread!
October 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
bj:
It just occurs to me … How much have you read on the subject? (rhetorical question!)
Ranginui Walker’s “Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou” (Strugggle Without End) is very wothwhile …. very hard to take in places, but nowhere near as bad as Dee Alexander Brown’s “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” about the American West, which shocked me to the core when I read it.
kia ora!
eredwen
October 8th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
No, it was signed by the British Crown’s representative and the representatives of certain iwi.
This is, by my lights, “a whole bunch” as opposed to a simple contract between two specific entities. I never argued that they weren’t sovereign, but when speaking loosely of the signatories as people I was actually regarding them as co-equal with the crown if you read my post again.
Eredwen… I am being VERY careful where I tread, but I spent a few hours reading the treaty in TePapa, and it clearly means that in Aotearoa we are divided according to this basic document into members of Iwi, or Maori, and everyone else the NZIS sees fit to allow in. It could be a bit wrong that the Iwi don’t have a direct say on that issue as well… no?
So if we want to have a country with “one law for everyone” (which I don’t insist on, but is a party plank for the Brash one and which is the accepted standard of fairness and human rights everywhere else on the planet how well did “separate but equal” do in the USA, how well did apartheid work?), you have to reckon with this treaty that freezes this nation in place, with one law for Iwi and another for the rest of us. I am not agreeing with Brash above, merely pointing out that if you have one law for some and another for others, you have to have a legal means to discriminate some from others. This leaves HIM with a puzzle that has him muttering about “pure” blood and looking more an idiot than usual. The fact that he is stuck for a solution and you have a pretty good one, is perfectly OK.
I reckon the treaty is a good thing, but for the nation of New Zealand, it poses some very interesting questions. My guess is that to have a united country with “one law for all” we may have to have a divided parliament and two Prime Ministers both signing off on the law… as any constitution that implements the treaty has to recognize the equality of the Iwi just as thoroughly as the treaty did… and any attempt to integrate the treaty into the “common law” framework that the crown works with, is fraught with difficulty and legal expense. Which expense we’ve seen already and the results are not apparently satisfactory to anyone. Maybe we can work it out in the end, but the challenge appears more daunting than that of a dual parliament, even though that would require a Constitution of some form… and the difference between Maori and non-Maori would have to be recognizable legally for that too.
OK?
I’ve read every scrap that has crossed my path, but I’m working through spring loaded Java, tapestry and a half dozen emerging technologies right now. Studying at the treaty in TePapa however, is an experience that everyone should have. Nearest thing to a religious experience I get is when I contemplate documents like that. They are the stuff that advances human civilization… our ability to live and work together, and they are altogether too unusual.
respectfully
BJ
October 8th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
bj..
as a fifth generation celtic-origined new zealander can i say i most definitely do not see new zealand as them and us…
and feel my (unspoken) connections to this place..and everyone in it are what make it all so special for me..
and yes..we fucked up big time in our original encounters..
but unlike other places..(including the land of your birth…a land forever steeped/tainted in/by the blood of the native americans who were systematically butchered..and had all their land taken from them..and are now left..drenched in alcohol and no hope..dying of european diseases of neglect on reservations..
a land then further built on the exploitations of slavery of african-americans..)
then of course there is australia..
so..bj..unlike those places we are trying (however flawed that may be in its’ execution..and slow in fruition..) to make good on those past errors..
and make this a good country/home for all of us..(and not just ghettoize those we had previously killed/stolen from/enslaved..and then leave them to rot..)
and..compared with say..australia..or your land b.j..i reckon we are making a good fist of it..
and just this is reason enough for us all to be able to hold our heads high as new zealanders…
and as for the treaty..this is something that should be celebrated by both pakeha and europeans..
because basically..for europeans..it is our permission/right/authority to be here..
unlike say..once again..australia..and the land of your birth..bj..
lands that were stolen..end of story..and are forever tainted/spoilt/made uneasy.. by that theft..
and bj..i know you love to have an opinion/the last word on absolutely everything….
but on this one..you should really take the position/stance of the respectful visitor..(who could learn a lot)..eh..?
and just butt out of pontificating at us about what is surely..ours..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 8th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
censoring me again frog..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 8th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
wtf has happened to the long piece i did in response to bys hijacking of this thread..?
and while we are at it..once again..what happened to the long piuece i did last weekend…that has just vanished..
i can think of no censorship reasons for tonights one……
last sundays’ one contained the word bullsh*t..
where have both these pieces ‘gone’..?..frog..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 8th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
bj, you’re incredible!
October 9th, 2006 at 2:36 am
bj,
with due respect, from 1840 to the 1980s, the British Crown, colonial govt. and NZ govt. pretty much took whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted it. the treaty obligations were ignored by the parliament, executive and judiciary. the iwi were told to get stuffed (dispossessed). and now we hear the cry for “one law for all!”. yeah, right. do you mean one law for all, as in when the clark govt doesn’t like an appeal court decision in favour of an iwi’s customary rights they pass a new law to extinguish said rights? in other words, 21st century property expropriation.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:26 am
tochigi Says:
October 9th, 2006 at 2:36 am
bj,
with due respect, from 1840 to the 1980s, the British Crown, colonial govt. and NZ govt. pretty much took whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted it. the treaty obligations were ignored by the parliament, executive and judiciary. the iwi were told to get stuffed (dispossessed). and now we hear the cry for “one law for all!�.
Somebody explain the Maori version of the Treaty, (the honouring of which, we non- Maori have a right to stay here > Green Party Policy), and operationalise it in modern day NZ (”an iwi’s customary rights” presented to the Clark government are just the tail of the elephant).
Henry
October 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am
“and yes..we fucked up big time in our original encounters..”
Hi Phil, I believe the above phrase is what kept your posts in moderation overnight. As for last weekend, I really don’t know - nothing showed up in moderation. Perhaps there was a technical error? Hard as it may be to believe, I really have no interest in censoring you:)
October 9th, 2006 at 8:50 am
Tochigi - I agree, but why do you think I did not? What did I say anywhere that indicated that I thought that the Maori were treated fairly after signing that treaty, in law or in parliamentary debate? I am pointing out a legitimate issue, that HAS to be addressed for the treaty to have legal meaning.
Phil, it absolutely does not matter to the treaty how you see it. The treaty says it is “them and us” or “us and them” if you happen to be on the other side of the argument. The treaty does this. It can be integrated into government and a constitution written that gives the Maori a proper co-equal say (no matter if there are 10 or 10 million of them), or it can be wedged into the current legal system piecemeal, but however it is done, the distinction has to be understandable and legally defined.
I reckon this is viewed two different ways and the dichotomy is confusing. I found it quite amusing to be taking both sides of an issue and arguing myself to a standstill.
Basically the rule that “one law for all” cannot be carved in stone, but violating it is something I find a bit scary. It happens to be a very powerful plank for a conservative party as well. The problem is that there is a treaty and it is real and it must be honoured, because IT in its existence, embodies the equality struck between the Iwi and the Crown.
The treaty that forces the current “inequality” in law, is also a recognition of equality between nations. The American Indians had such treaties and contracts too, which were duly ignored by the Dunny Brushes of the day. The point is that there are apparent (but temporally disjoint) contradictions between the effects of the treaty and contemporary liberal thought.
So sovereign equality trumps “one law for all”. Should we strive for a way to obtain a governmental form that honours the treaty and provides “one law for all”? Realistic means of going forward from this position that maintain justice for everyone are sought and lawyers have a guaranteed source of income for as long as we don’t resolve it.
respectfully
BJ
October 9th, 2006 at 9:10 am
(ahem..!..)..apologies for that expletive undeleted…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 9:25 am
By the way, thanks for all the interesting, supportive and constructive comments (random Treaty of Waitangi debate aside…) It’s heartening to see that many of you still find this a useful resource. Can I stress that you’re welcome to send ideas and links through the feedback function at anytime, and though I might not use them all, they’re much appreciated.
We’re still mulling over some ideas, but I will keep you posted.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:46 am
and anyway bj..where the feck do you get off hijacking a thread (again!) about a crucial issue for the greens..?
namely ..the (under)-use of frogblog/the media..by the greens..
(and..some response(s) on that from you..frog..would be appreciated/enlightening..eh..?..)
are you a rightie…?..b.j…?..white-anting..?
what do you not understand about ’shut the feck up..!’..b.j..?
and take this conversation with yourself to an appropriate thread..
meanwhile..could we please get back on to this very important topic/subject/issue…
to summarise…
1)frogblog is drying up from neglect/inattention…
2)..the greens have a well thought out detailed policy program for the issue of the day..climate-change..
3)..most of us have never even heard of this policy…(despite it having been finalised/released some time ago.)
let alone know what it contains..
4)ergo..it is not drawing too long a bow to conclude the greens are not (currently) making any (effective) use of the media to ’sell’/promote that (and other) policies/solutions….
5)..this is the problem/issue..
6)..suggested solutions..to date..
a)..a ramping up of the utilisation of frogblog..(and using that ‘new media’ forum to engage the body politic with those green ideas…
this to include concerted use of party mps/spokepeople/leadership..to engage with the public/media/commenters on this site…)
b)..an opning up of the (members only) forum to the rest of us/the media/the public/degate…
others ideas/thoughts are welcomed/called for…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 9:51 am
(ahem)..’degate’..should read ‘debate’..
(and posted before seeing response from frog..
i look forward to updates on any progress/ideas..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Ah Phil…love your work, but if you’re going to accuse BJ of hijacking the topic, you might want to re-read Frog’s original posting. I didn’t see any mention of _your_ points 2,3 or 4.
Just a small point, and with tongue half in cheek
October 9th, 2006 at 10:02 am
and frog..re yr call for links/topics to be posted thru to you..can i note that whoar ..every day..has some 15-25 stories/links..many of which could/would be of interest/on topic for ‘greenies’..and their fellow-travellers…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 10:07 am
um farmgeek…re 2)..frog alerted us to the existance of the greens’ climate-change policy..
re 3)..i hadn’t heard of it..?..had/have you..?
4)is the conclusions from 2 and 3…
all seems on -topic…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Phil, I agree it would be great if more people had heard of the Turn Down the Heat paper. However, I feel bound to point out that, as an avid frogblog reader, you should have heard of it before, as it has been referred to numerous times.
At the time of its release it was also featured on Morning Report and Campbell Live and was the subject of several newspaper columns. Subsequently the Greens asked questions about it in Parliament and received positive responses from then Climate Change Minister Pete Hodgson.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:42 am
phil - not to put too fine a point on this, but if you review the thread you’ll see that I was responding to other people’s posts AFTER I responded to the original thread topic… or is it just that you like to yank my chain? Eh?
BJ
October 9th, 2006 at 11:00 am
phil u:
As a “fifth generation celtic-origined new zealander” who “most definitely does not see new zealand as them and us” … you certainly can write a powerful piece when you put your mind to it!
Excellent contribution!
eredwen
October 9th, 2006 at 11:59 am
A link to frogblog from the main Green Party website might widen frogblog use and inject more energy into it. I seem to recall finding frogblog quite recently and randomly, perhaps in some Google search for something else - not sure. Perhaps there might be a link somewhere on the site that I haven’t seen? Perhaps more other sites could link to frogblog.
Re the Treaty discussion above, it seems to me that the question which BJ took up is interesting and understandable, and his interest in the Treaty is all to his credit. The discussion above has clarified how contributors perceive things to work, among other things. Feelings do tend to run high around Treaty issues, again understandably. It is always a shame when people are treated badly. Perhaps frogblog could have one or more threads on the Treaty.
Keep the sunshine coming, people!
October 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Henry asks: “Somebody explain the Maori version of the Treaty, (the honouring of which, we non-Maori have a right to stay here > Green Party Policy), and operationalise it in modern day NZ (â€?an iwi’s customary rightsâ€? presented to the Clark government are just the tail of the elephant).”
……..
Just in case you genuinely want to know, this is “off the top of my head”:
The English and Maori versions of the Treaty/Tiriti have differences in meaning in some important areas (The Pakeha Missionary interpreter was not native speakers of Maori).
By International Law/Precedent, when there is a difference of interpretation, “the indigenous-language version prevails”.
At the time of the signing of the Treaty, Maori were in the vast majority. Had Iwi united, they could have driven Pakeha out of Aotearoa (and/or killed most of them in the process.)
Recently the current Government/Parliament, over-riding a Treaty Settlement underway through the Waitangi Tribunal, rushed ahead and claimed “the Seabed and Foreshore for all New Zealanders” to stop a strong historical “customary rights” claim of stewardship of a small part of the coastline which was a legitimate part of an Iwi’s application to the Waitangi Tribunal. (The Iwi has always let anyone use that part of the coastline which has been under their stewardship for centuries.)
Greens regard this action of Parliament, in this context, as a serious and dangerous misuse of power. (”Fine while we are in the majority” you might say) … but unfair, and potentially a dangerous precedent fot the future.
Tochigi asked/pointed out:
“do you mean one law for all, as in when the clark govt doesn’t like an appeal court decision in favour of an iwi’s customary rights they pass a new law to extinguish said rights? in other words, 21st century property expropriation.”
October 9th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
frog..that is well and good…those media outings you describe….
but the fact still remains..that apart from the authors..few others know what the policy is/solutions are…
and surely that is a shortcoming..?
and what has been done since then..?..since that initial release..?
i feel it is particularly timely for the greens to be pushing this about now..what with climate-change firmly in the public focus..eh..?
and not likely to go away for a while..eh..?
should there not be a major focus by the party on educating the public to what we propose to do to to tackle these issues…?
if we can get those cemented in now and on the near future….the positive effects of that will surely flow through to us at elction time..?
doncha think..?
i referred to a roadshow before…
and..correct me if i’m wrong….but would not a well set-up/presented/effective roadshow presentation travelling around the country..with mp’s featuring when possible..be an idea worth considering..?
would surely go quite some way to raise that awareness..and would also be an effective tool with which to build the party membership..?
plus good local media coverage of any events…will help in explaining those policies…
that (obviously) is not the only way the policy can be sold…
but as there is now no doubt about the implications of climate change for us all..it would be particularly timely for us to find that expectant/waiting/listening audience now..eh..?..instead of later..?
eredwen..thank you..
i almost need to thank the american for focussing my impatience..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 9th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Phil - If my patience helps you to focus that’s all to the good
I think Phil is onto something with the idea of “taking it on the road”. Certainly the policies we have do not get enough air time, print-space or other media exposure. It would be a pretty big ask in terms of resources, but it also appeals to the strengths of the grass-roots dominant structure of the party.
respectfully
BJ
October 9th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Prim: to answer your comment:
“A link to frogblog from the main Green Party website might widen frogblog use and inject more energy into it.” …
To find the LINK, look down the left hand column of the GREEN WEBPAGE.
From the top the heading are “CAMPAIGNS” then “COMMUNICATIONS” (where you will see “FROGBLOG” on a green line with a picture of frog).
THAT is the link to frogblog (Click on it and you come straight here!)
October 9th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Thanks Eredwen. Good to know. Just fyi, the Green Party page that I had stored was the friendly welcome page, not the home page. Not sure if there is confusion risk there for newcomers. The welcome page could link to frogblog, and more obviously to the home page. Just suggestions; no need to reply to this.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
If someone were to be browsing Frogblog for the first time today, they would have no idea that a fair way down the comments list in the “Poor ol’ Frog” thread was such an impassioned discussion of the treaty.
Blog threads are often led astray onto simmering topics which flare into heated debate. These gems are often missed by those doing a casual skim of the blog page for something of interest. A forum with fresh threads with good descriptive titles gets more eyes reading I think (although I am guilty of regular ‘231 comments’ marathon reads on The Oil Drum, and perhaps the odd ‘576 comments’ JHK job to get an insight into American attitudes).
On the treaty and how we feel as a nation… my perception is that there is a drawing together, in the face of an ‘us and them’ situation. Especially among many of my young friends, those I talk to at schools etc, there is a lessening in the traditional bi-cultural rift and a rising ‘unease’ over the “Asian invasion”. Unadulterated xenophobia really. But apparently based on real experiences and attitudes… Asian students requiring/demanding more teacher time and resources, intimidation by those with triad/gang affiliations etc. Among GenX and Y’ers it’s less xenophobic, more a feeling of increased competitiveness due to immigration pressure and its effect on some aspects of life such as the housing market.
I was relaxing out by the fire at the Mussel Inn, and as the night drew on a good number dudes and dudettes of Asian origin arrived: all sat there, faces lit by cell phone glow or behind the slow panning of a red handycam LED and the odd flash. Kind of dented the ambiance, but the fire was warm and hearty and the site-brewed beer cold so it was a pleasant place to be. Nevertheless, a portly female of the babyboomer persuasion beside me started muttering Asian invasion this, Asian invasion that. It transpired she was a big city property developer. I pointed out the irony.
The Treaty festering sore is becoming somewhat healed (or sidelined) among the youth. The young Maori are progressively expressing open dislike of Asian immigrants. Why would they embrace multiculturalism when the biculturalism experiment still had so far to go?
Just as an aside… a good Chinese friend of mine went back to Shanghai to sell her house and told me she had seen the ‘body in a suitcase’ case reported in a Chinese paper as being perpetrated by four Maoris!
October 10th, 2006 at 12:20 am
You’re talking about the Mussel Inn in Golden Bay?
if so, times are achanging…
anyway…good fireplace, good mussels, good beer, good music…excellent composting lav!
October 10th, 2006 at 3:42 am
Ah the Mussel Inn, you don’t know how many days I´ve longed to sip the Pale Whale Ale since being exiled from our fair shores.
I’m gonna keep it to debating the frogblog , so here are a few ideas.
1. The forum is a good idea, but it will need moderation, it could serve to act as a good debating ground though, which I think frogblog needs after losing a bit of edge since the elections.
2. Green News send in. frogblog could recieve first hand submissions on green news from around the country/world. Alternatively you could arrange an automatic rss feed with certain key words from certain key sites to keep the news up to date.
3. Spruce up the colours of frogblog, there are nicer greens than the ones its using.
4. I think multimedia is the way to go, you are using wordpress which makes adding audio and video content a piece of cake. And one good thing about living in exile is that the rest of the world has broadband! Common, I’m sitting in an internet cafe in Bolivia for Christ sake and am able to stream video content!
Thats it!
Harrison
http://www.harrisonmitchell.com
October 10th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
how is the ‘toot’..?…there in bolivia..?
phil(whoart.co.nz)
October 11th, 2006 at 7:16 am
The toot? There was a blockade of La Paz yesterday so the whole city was much nicer as no cars could get in or out. Not alot of tooting going on. I feel we should institutionalise no-car days for all large cities. Once every couple of months or something.
Bolivia is alive and changing. the new president Evo, is nationalising this and that and rewriting the constitution to take into account the indigenous people that make up the majority here.
You can here the rumblings all the way to Washington.
Harrison
http://www.harrisonmitchell.com
October 11th, 2006 at 10:33 am
I agree - some carfree days and areas would be really interesting. It might help more people realise how easy it can be to travel by public transport. A friend of mine who always drove - and complained about parking - once took the train and never looked back. Another convert to public transport!
October 13th, 2006 at 9:03 am
eredwen Says:
October 9th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
>Recently the current Government/Parliament, over-riding a Treaty Settlement underway through the Waitangi Tribunal, rushed ahead and claimed “the Seabed and Foreshore for all New Zealanders� to stop a strong historical “customary rights� claim of stewardship of a small part of the coastline which was a legitimate part of an Iwi’s application to the Waitangi Tribunal. (The Iwi has always let anyone use that part of the coastline which has been under their stewardship for centuries.)
The Maori version of the treaty gives Maori :“full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and
Estates, Forests, Fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually
possess�. The Crown thus recognized Maori’s inherent property rights, customary use of lands
and resources, cultural heritage and traditional chieftainship authority.
One case is not the end but the beginning; we have seen occupation of Brighton Pier for instance (and others); then there are the bumper stickers “Foreshore and seabed Maori fore shore”. In addition the people on the hikoi filmed on Harbour Bridge were saying “we’re your new landlords”…(is this the expectation? Motivation is a function of the value of a goal and the probability of achieving it)
>Greens regard this action of Parliament, in this context, as a serious and dangerous misuse of power. (�Fine while we are in the majority� you might say) … but unfair, and potentially a dangerous precedent fot the future.
And Tariana Turia is fond of issuing veiled threats about “one day brown people will outnumber blah! blah!…” and she hopes they will “treat us better than we treated them” which was “worse than the holocaust”. She has chastised people for criticizing teenage pregnancies among “her people” (forget she is more an ethnic Pakeha than Maori)
>Tochigi asked/pointed out:
“do you mean one law for all, as in when the clark govt doesn’t like an appeal court decision in favour of an iwi’s customary rights they pass a new law to extinguish said rights? in other words, 21st century property expropriation.�
In this case “one law for all” means the right to test customary title (property rights) for the whole coastline and surrounding seas as guaranteed in the Maori version of the treaty. That’s why Labour (wisely) stopped it.
One thing no one (NZ Government) wants to admit is that the Treaty was flawed.
Henry
October 13th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Come on Henry. It might not have been what many Maori or Pakeha would want today, looking at it in retrospect, but we can’t deny that the Rangatira who signed it did so in good faith. Given the almost immediate breaches perpetrated by the Crown after its signing, it may be arguable whether the Crown signed it in good faith. Nevertheless, it was signed as the agreement that established our nation.
So, what actually is the “flaw” you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?
And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?
October 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am
toad Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Come on Henry. It might not have been what many Maori or Pakeha would want today, looking at it in retrospect, but we can’t deny that the Rangatira who signed it did so in good faith. Given the almost immediate breaches perpetrated by the Crown [settler government?] after its signing, it may be arguable whether the Crown signed it in good faith. Nevertheless, it was signed as the agreement that established our nation.
So, what actually is the “flaw� you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?
You have to consider the circumstances under which the treaty was drawn up, with no positive outcome the British side had to come up with a positive result (or trudge back and forth, and do it again). If the British had used the word “rangatiratanga” instead of “kawanatanga” Maori wouldn’t have signed
Here’s a quote from Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:
“Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was
Alex Frame. [xxx]
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. ”
If there was no treaty, the chances are that colonisation would have proceeded anyway.
>And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?
That sounds fine, but it depends how much spin you put on the tiny matter of who owns the foreshore and seabed. At present many of us have grown up thinking “us” or “we the people” and that we have the benevolent “Queens Chain” along the coast.
You ought to put your money where your mouth is and clarify what this is likely to mean. Saying “The Iwi has always let anyone use xxx” is an unsatisfactory guarantee, since long term various Iwi are likely (IMHO) to consolidate their control over their section of coast (and why shouldn’t they,.. it’s “theirs”). Iwi can also choose who there friends are: Pacific Islanders, rich Chinese?? What’s more this is permanent.
It is notable that the only other party that supports private ownership of the coast (apart from ports and marinas) is ACT. Why? because the rich have the money and think they should be allowed anything.
As Portia said: You can have your pound of flesh (Maori version of treaty) but you you must not draw any blood (create an environment that destabilizes the whole country).
Henry
October 13th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
toad Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Come on Henry. It might not have been what many Maori or Pakeha would want today, looking at it in retrospect, but we can’t deny that the Rangatira who signed it did so in good faith. Given the almost immediate breaches perpetrated by the Crown [settler government?] after its signing, it may be arguable whether the Crown signed it in good faith. Nevertheless, it was signed as the agreement that established our nation.
So, what actually is the “flaw� you assert is in the Treaty, Henry?
Flaw is not the best word perhaps, but on the British side you have a group who have to come up with the right answer or keep going back. If they had substituted the word rangatiratanga instead of kawanatanga Maori wouldn’t have signed.
Here’s a quote from Bullshit, Backlash, and Bleeding Hearts. By David Slack:
“Time for some expert help here. The first lecturer I had at law school who taught our class anything Treaty-related was Alex Frame. [ ….]
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. [End ofQuote]
What’s more treaty or no treaty there is a high chance colonisation would have proceeded anyway (from somewhere).
toad Says:
>And why is it that the staunchest of defenders of property rights seem to lose their fervour when those property rights are held by Maori?
That sounds fine except that this is the small matter of the beaches, coastline, bays, and waters off the coast to an unspecified distance. It isn’t just about this little sardine and that little sardine, more like a pod of whales, (even that isn’t a suitable metaphor). In fact it is the potential of and unlimitedness of ratifying the Maori version of the treaty that works against them.
I am reminded of the Merchant of Venice: you can have your pound of flesh (ratify the Maori version of the Treaty) but you must not draw any blood (destabilise society).
Saying: “The Iwi has always let anyone use that part of the coastline ….� Is not enough guarantee; after all, under the treaty it is theirs anyway; they can do what they want with it. Under a new ethos there is likely (IMHO) to be a tightening of control. Iwi can choose who their friends are (ie join for strength with whatever group, or billionaire foreigner. What’s more this would be a permanent change.
That is a key point of difference.
Remember in 1840 there were 60 to 70,000 Maori with the whole country to themselves, now 2006 they make up 15% of the population and 4+ million. We all need the freedom of the wilderness.
I note that the only other party (apart from the Maori party) that supports the private ownership of the coastline (not including ports and marinas) is ACT. The rich want to be able to buy what ever they want.
Henry