Daring — if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts

14 Comments »

• 5nz.com says:

  29 July 2009 at 3:20 pm

  It’s the flip side of “God told me to cover sin”. I’d rather be go down in the annals of history as a failure who tried than be someone who has done nothing to affect change.

  The ultimate irony of the whole “cover sin” thing was when I first read the phrase I gave “cover” the journalists meaning where cover actually means to investigate rather than the PR meaning of obfuscate or hide.

  • Peter says:

    29 July 2009 at 6:07 pm

    “I’d rather be go down in the annals of history as a failure who tried than be someone who has done nothing…”
    Yep. Me too. Even if it’s just the annals of my own children.

• Chowbok says:

  1 August 2009 at 9:38 am

  Ahhh… I hear the words of the Recusant!

  Brave words friend.

  But, would you really? Would you really put your family through that — generation after generation after generation?

  Are ideas worth dying for? Are they worth being imprisoned for? Just imagine having your property confiscated and the God given right to pass your inheritance on to friends and family taken away from you. Imagine being placed on house arrest for an idea. Imagine spending twenty plus years in prison for an idea. Imagine exile, and execution for an idea.

  Can an idea really be worth all this?

  Walk in the footsteps of Recusants if you dare. The Money or Pandora’s Box? After all, complacency and acceptance are well paid comfortable occupations.

  My ancestors made the choice to protect an idea 400 years ago and it cost us dearly.

  Today we find ourselves physically divided and decidedly middle-class.

  Now, while we were never conquered by the false church. We know our place. We are still Catholic, and so, that is all that matters.

  The English Crown will never own us until it yields before Rome! This is my legacy!

  • Peter says:

    1 August 2009 at 11:25 am

    Can we ever really know until we are tested?
    Until we are find ourselves taking a stand for principle (however we define that) in the face of likely or actual negative repercussions, can we really know how far we would take it?

    re the Recusant: I hadn’t made that link, but, yes, it’s completely relevant.
    I recall reading somewhere (re Communists?) that if your aim is to destroy a group of ‘non-conformists’, the LAST thing you should do it persecute them.
    Persecution can merely drive them together and strengthen their ‘otherness’ identity.

    Thanks, your expansion into generational consequences of ‘taking a stand’ was an eye-opener. Cheers, P

• Peter says:

  1 August 2009 at 11:50 am

  I recall learning from my History prof at Victoria that the British colonialists had a three-fold strategy for dealing with ‘revolting natives’:

  1) Hard out opposition. Stamp out resistance – brutally if necessary.
  2) Co-opt the leaders.
  3) Undercut the reforms being demanded.

  @Chowbok: #3 speaks to your “complacency and acceptance are well paid comfortable occupations.” It’s about finding an acceptable level of ‘comfort’.

• Chowbok says:

  1 August 2009 at 2:07 pm

  Despotism is the yoke of weak men. Hatred is the easiest of emotions to invoke.

  Love and sacrifice are the chattels of the strong; these are the tools of real power.

  Constant, persistent and obstinate non-violent opposition to an enemy is the truest and best weapon to wield in war.

  • Peter says:

    1 August 2009 at 2:54 pm

    @Chowbok: Fine sentiments. Poetry. Thank you.

    On the non-violent opposition, look what took place in New Zealand just yesterday:

    Iwi forgives the Crown
    Friday Jul 31, 2009

    An apology from the Crown and a historic statement of forgiveness were exchanged yesterday after Parliament passed legislation enacting a Waitangi Treaty settlement covering the wider Wellington region.

    Prime Minister John Key read the Crown apology and said the statement of forgiveness, the first to be delivered formally by iwi to the Crown, marked a new phase in relationships.

    The apology says the Crown is “deeply sorry it has not always lived up to its [Treaty] obligations and its principles” in its dealings with Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

    The statement of forgiveness was delivered by former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves, a trustee and chairman of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust.

    The settlement provides commercial and cultural redress, a $25 million financial package and the vesting of various culturally significant sites around the Port Nicholson area.

    Three islands in Wellington Harbour are part of the deal.

    – NZPA

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10587766

    The Prime Minister John Key’s statement overtly acknowledged the harm the generations of discriminatory treatment had caused:

    Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko O Te Ika — Crown Apology

    I am here to apologise on behalf of the Crown for its many breaches of The
    Treaty of Waitangi against the iwi who make up Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko
    o Te Ika:

    • Te Atiawa, • Ngāti Tama, • Ngāti Ruanui, • Taranaki and other iwi from the Taranaki area.

    I will now read the Crown’s apology for the wrongs it has done to the iwi who
    make up Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika since the Treaty was signed
    169 years ago.

    The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always lived up to its Treaty of
    Waitangi obligations and that it has breached the Treaty of Waitangi, and its
    principles, in its dealings with Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika.

    The Crown recognises the tireless efforts and struggles of the ancestors of
    Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika in pursuit of their longstanding claims
    for justice and redress from the Crown.
    
    On 29 April 1840, rangatira of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika signed
    the Treaty of Waitangi in good faith and the spirit of establishing a peaceful
    and mutually beneficial relationship.

    Wellington has been the capital city of New Zealand since 1865. The location of government has added a special dimension to our relationship.

    The Crown has not always appropriately acknowledged your mana and
    rangatiratanga, but it has benefited from your exercise of kaitiakitanga,
    manaakitanga and whanaungatanga, in the Wellington area.

    The Crown has failed to protect your interests in a number of ways over the
    generations.
    
    These include the Crown’s dealings over, and eventual acquisition of, the Port
    Nicholson Block; the long delays in ensuring there was appropriate
    administration of the lands reserved for you in the Port Nicholson Block, and
    the Crown’s compulsory acquisition and endowment of your lands for public
    purposes.

    The Crown profoundly regrets that over the generations to the present day its
    breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have significantly impacted on your social
    and traditional structures, your autonomy, your ability to exercise your
    customary rights and responsibilities, your capacity for economic and social
    development and your physical, cultural, and spiritual well being.

    The Crown unreservedly apologises to your ancestors, to their
    descendants, and to the people of Taranaki Whānui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika
    today for its actions which have hurt and caused prejudice to you.

    Through this settlement the Crown is seeking to atone for its past wrongs
    towards you, restore its honour which has been tarnished by its actions, and
    to begin the process of healing.

    It is the Crown’s hope that this apology will mark a pivotal point in the
    rebuilding and enhancement of our relationship with you.

    We look forward to building a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation that
    can flourish in the future.

    Waiho i te toipoto, kaua i te toiroa (Let us keep close together, not wide apart.)

    http://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/Taranaki_Apology.pdf [PDF 220K]
    [emphasis added]

    This small settlement follows generations of (now admitted) disenfranchisement by the colonial powers and settler government in New Zealand. This was just one example.

    While I worked at Parliament Buildings there was no issue that required more moral courage from our politicians than the attempt to right the historical grievances in the face of racist opposition. Thankfully, we’ve achieved a measure of reconciliation in this country without the violence some endure.

• What new media needs to learn from old media @ The Paepae says:

  22 March 2010 at 9:22 pm

  […] Remember: “Daring: if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts.” […]

• Window dressing — Time to pay the piper? @ The Paepae says:

  13 April 2010 at 9:22 pm

  […] last mention of Doug Graham was this: While I worked at Parliament Buildings there was no issue that required more moral courage from […]

• Speak up @ The Paepae says:

  27 May 2010 at 9:49 am

  […] have for a long time, I salute this man’s courage. And his family’s. … And yours, if you dare. “Many saw evil. They dared to stop it.” . […]

• Anonymous comment vs IMPERSONATION @ The Paepae says:

  22 January 2011 at 8:17 pm

  […] etc. Nothing compared to the ugly campaigns against Neil Jenman. We’ve discussed before: If there wasn’t a risk, it wouldn’t take guts to speak out. It does. Things are not always what they […]

• Compulsory ‘uncovering’ of sin @ The Paepae says:

  22 April 2011 at 11:34 am

  […] Sarah so wisely said in her comment on my 2009 post Daring — if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts I’d rather be go down in the annals of history as a failure who tried than be someone who has […]

• ‘Sometimes the inner evil is so great that I have to shout loudly’ | The Paepae says:

  14 March 2013 at 9:36 am

  […] Remember: if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts […]

• Edward Snowden TED Talk March 2014 | The Paepae says:

  20 March 2014 at 1:38 pm

  […] Remember, Daring — if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts. […]