John Key with Merrill Lynch moko - pic: RadioLIVE (click)
From this morning’s NZ Herald editorial about the National-led government’s political machinations around heading off court action by Maori against its flagship asset sales policy*:
‘Too clever’ risk in Govt shares plan
Crown lawyers have acknowledged that pre-colonial iwi and hapu had customary control of rivers and streams in their area and those rights were preserved by the Treaty.
And that statement, about rights, is at the heart of the matter.
That’s despite the outcry … and the foaming repulsive hate speech and posturing of racists who call for the Key government to ‘show some spine’ (i.e. oppress indigenous rights) and seek to decry Maori — as a race! — as ‘greedy’.
John Key is never more personally-maligned by his constituency than when he is perceived as protecting indigenous rights. Remember this nasty demonisation (feather cloak, Tino Rangatiratanga/’Maori independence’ flag) courtesy of the Coastal Coalition and the ACT Party’s Muriel Newman?:
It’s inescapable that some rights were preserved by the Treaty of Waitangi — which has been upheld by the courts time and time again as a founding document of this country. For decades the Treaty was more marked by rapacious and dishonest breach than observance … and ‘elegant solutions’ of the day to get around government and local authority promises of reservation. Maori Native Lands Act, anyone? Maori Lands Administration Act? Public Works Act? Leases in perpetuity? Groan.
Today, the Treaty of Waitangi is at the heart of New Zealanders’ self-image as more enlightened settlers/occupiers than the state-orchestrated genocides of Australia, the USA and South America. For most of us, ‘By right of conquest’ doesn’t wash anymore. That seems like a ‘stone-age’ concept. But some some hate-mongers seem to be wish for a new round of Land Wars and revising history demonstrating their own insatiable greed.
– P
* A nice line elsewhere from Bryce Edwards’ political round up reminded me of the John Key moko image. “Fifty-fifty odds on the Government’s flagship policy getting off the ground? Merrill-Lynch would never gamble on those sorts of odds and their ex-trader wasn’t about to either.”
Aaagh I just wrote a long reply and then closed the page before clicking Post Comment.
Aaaaaaggggh
I hate it when that happens!
I’ll try again.
My view is this, the Treaty is a document that is wholly unsuitable to be the founding document for a country. David Lange said this, and I agree with him.
As far as I can tell, the Treaty was a document the British put together to cheat Maori out of the their land and resources, without having to fight them over every acre of the country.
So while there were many wars between the British and Maori, the British were keen to take the whole country by ‘peaceful’ means thus saving the cost of having to fight war after war to capture the territory. Wars are expensive, especially on the other side of the world.
So the British simply got the Maori to sign a bit of paper saying they effectively gave everything away to the British crown.
And of course there was duplicity here in that the Maori would have been told and believed that they were preserving their rights and lands etc.
The Treaty also exists in several forms, translations etc. And there can be complex debates about what exactly each bit means.
So for these reasons, I reckon we need a new constitution for the country. This would have to include Maori rights to a greater or lesser degree.
But some document that was formulated to cheat Maori out of everything is just not suitable as a founding document for a country. It needs to be chucked out and replaced with something more modern, sensible and more easily understood.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts David.
I agree with your (and Lange’s) description of the Treaty as ‘wholly unsuitable’. And also with your cynical (realistic) view of the drivers of the ‘contract’ between Queen Victoria’s representatives and the Maori chiefs that signed a version of it.
It is, however, for better or worse, all we have!
As one-sided as it has proven in application, thank goodness there’s been *something* in addition to the physical isolation to act as hand brake on the British settler government’s rapacious unbridled cheating, confiscation and corrupt practices … all used to deprive the indigenous people of their main resource.
Yes. Again we agree.
A constitutional review *is* being undertaken on the quiet, as I understand it, as a result of the Support agreement between National and the Maori Party (in 2008)… it’s a little like the joke about a tree falling unobserved in the forest.
I know some are alarmed about the review’s stated wide purview (e.g. W Peters) but I for one will be interested to see what it comes up with.
Cheers, P
The Treaty is destroying this country it needs to be gone. Maori believe its a fair deal, its not ! God knows how much $$ has been bribed sorry paid out government in my life time alone and as David says it almost 100% abstract and is very subjective. I believe the courts which Peter once again decides to side with because it suits him. Could have easily scraped most of the claims which pass in front of them, but they are scared of the implications and its not the ‘PC’ thing to do. You ask NZer’s whether these cases are fair and valuable to NZ most would say ‘no’ its heavily Bias towards Maori and even boarding on Racist behavior from the other side, but that’s ignored. Ironically the only efforts to try and correct this have been done by National and partners. You know the side which actually try’s to make a difference.
The Treaty of Waitangi Act is itself, like other legislation, a ‘living document’.
Efforts by successive governments (National in some cases working in frameworks set up and legislated by Labour) to resolve disgraceful past injustices have been at the centre of our development as a nation, in my view.
As I said about Doug Graham earlier… http://www.thepaepae.com/daring/201/comment-page-1/#comment-16
Treaty of Waitangi Act
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435368.html
“An Act to provide for the observance, and confirmation, of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by establishing a Tribunal to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty and to determine whether certain matters are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty
Preamble
Whereas on 6 February 1840 a Treaty was entered into at Waitangi between Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the Maori people of New Zealand:
And whereas the text of the Treaty in the English language differs from the text of the Treaty in the Maori language:
And whereas it is desirable that a Tribunal be established to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the Treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles.
2. Interpretation
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
historical Treaty claim means a claim made under section 6(1) that arises from or relates to an enactment referred to in section 6(1)(a) or (b) enacted, or to a policy or practice adopted or an act done or omitted by or on behalf of the Crown, before 21 September 1992
Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person
private land means any land, or interest in land, held by a person other than—
(a)the Crown; or
(b)a Crown entity within the meaning of the Public Finance Act 1989
submit, in relation to a historical Treaty claim, means submitted in accordance with a practice note made by the Tribunal under clause 5(10) of Schedule 2
Treaty means the Treaty of Waitangi as set out in English and in Maori in Schedule 1
Tribunal means the Waitangi Tribunal established under this Act.
3. Act to bind Crown
This Act shall bind the Crown.”
Why is a living document? constitutions by definition are not a living document, it’s not a piece of documentation or a instruction manual.
Its only living by the forces of certain party’s wanting more out of it and having their cake and eating it too.
Saying its a living document is a cop out to have it changed. Did British agree to these amendments? Since they were part of the deal in the first place?
Perhaps you’ve heard of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution?
Please read my comment. I said the Treaty of Waitangi *Act* is a living document. As evidence refer to the 1993, 2006 insertions mentioned at the end of section 2 as Amendments.
The Treaty of Waitangi document itself is not changeable, being an historical document. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 to interpret and give guidance to the principles.
I hoped readers would see the significance of that part of the preamble that acknowledges the different versions:
That certainly creates some difficulties, but as you pointed out Craig, (a) goodwill and good faith on the part of successive governments [did you read John Key’s speech at http://www.thepaepae.com/daring/201/comment-page-1/#comment-16 ?)
and (b) extraordinary peace-making and willingness to compromise and co-operate for he sake of peace (worthy of a Mandella or a Tutu, in my view) on the part of Maori have seen progress made.
Intolerant calls to ‘move on’ and ‘get over it’ on the part of some short-sighted critics of the process seem to me to miss the point of what some countries call ‘truth and reconciliation’.
There’s a shock I knew you were going to reference that.
If you think that Amendments to the US constitution make it a Living document that is drawing a Long bow.
Sure things need to progress as time moves on. But changing it is like near impossible. As should be changing the ToW.
But as I said claiming the US constitution and The Treaty of Waitangi are living documents is a BS suiting an argument definition.
I’m not clear what you’re saying with this thought:
As for my ‘long bow’? Well, let’s examine it…
I think there’s an important distinction of type between the US Constitution (A bill of rights, really. Legislation subject to Amendment, as has repeatedly been demonstrated) and, say, the Declaration of Independence which is an historical ‘founding document’.
The Treaty of Waitangi itself falls into the second category but the Treaty of Waitangi ACT (legislation which established the Tribunal and has, just like the US Constitution, been amended) is subject to Parliamentary reform, like any other Law.
I agreed with David above about New Zealand needing a new constitution. Geoffrey Palmer’s efforts with the Constitution Act 1986
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/DLM94204.html
went a long way for formalizing such things as our Parliamentary/Head of State stuff. Good on him. But it seems incomplete. (Politics is the art of the possible, they say. So good on him.)
The term: ‘The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ can be, in effect, a Rorschach ink blot test … so open to interpretation.
If you consider the legal arguments in the US over their Constitution and what simple phrases like ‘right to bear arms’ mean, you’ll see there’s no magic bullet that will *end* argument.
But redneck bigotry as has been fanned in response to this asset sales argument won’t solve anything.
– P
Sorry it was a bit muddled,
What I meant was as Society evolves the Digital Age for example These NON living documents/legislation do need updating i.e Amendments. But changing them for example Annually does not happen because of the Hoops and Red Tape. Voting etc to get through. It makes these almost impossible to change.
Modifications to these after generations does not make a document living.
This Blog is a living document not the US Constitution,DoI or the ToW.
Sure the ToW is not a ‘constitution’ but its the closest thing we have too it. And I hope your right about one being thought through now, that would be interesting. I still feel it would be heavily riddled with PC themes attempting to keep everyone happy all the time. (puke)
I know you like link fodder so here Peter here is some references you may be familiar with you seem to attempt them frequently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
It’s gauche of me to describe the Declaration of Independence as a ‘bill of rights’ … but it seems to me it is a ‘statement of principles’ in much the same way as the Treaty of Waitangi which successive NZ governments have recognised, and our law tasks the Waitangi Tribunal as providing interpretation of those principles.
We agree, Craig, the Treaty is an important document to New Zealand. And as a snapshot of contemporary intentions – avowed in good faith? hmmm questionable, as you suggest – the Treaty wording is not changeable.
Your statement “…claiming the US constitution and The Treaty of Waitangi are living documents is a BS suiting an argument definition.” doesn’t seem based on anything I’ve said. I referred to the *Act* as a living document, and stand by that. Let me explain.
Legislation (such as the Treaty of Waitangi Act) which is amended by Parliament, and always open to that, or subject to interpretation by the courts and judicial bodies such as the Waitangi Tribunal seems to me to be a living document.
e.g. Did you notice above that the definition of ‘private land’ wasn’t in the original Treaty of Waitangi Act, nor its relationship to the construct of ‘Crown-owned entity’ until years later (1993)?
The US Constitution may seem to you to be so politically revered now, and US politics so partisan that politicians dare not touch a hair on its head but the original document – ‘non-living’ in your view – was amended 27 times … with the last amendment ratified in 1992.
Hello?
– P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Well i just jolly well hope that the Celts and Britons take legal action against Italy for all the oppression, colonialisation and general conquering that went on under those nasty emperors. Also all good Pagans should take action against the Governments of Turkey (representing the byzantines and constantine etc – because if you conquer something you inherit the debt too…) , Israel and also the Vatican for the extremes of persecution and destruction wrought against them (if you can find one actually still living – effective it was…)
I once tried to take an educational institution to task for a series of orchestrated sins against a family member … over a number of years. I got told via their very well remunerated lawyer … “we all need to move on”.
You can only work with what you’ve got – at the time.
I guess your suggestion is meant to be facetious?
If not, by what legal mechanism could they (Brtons, Celts, Pagans) seek redress from past invasions?
How I see it:
The indigenous people of New Zealand (and Australia in some few cases) faced with 19th century invasions, managed to negotiate some formal treaties and recorded Crown promises of the ‘reservation’ of some of their lands and rights. Like Craig, you might see all that as window-dressing now, and perhaps it was.
Literally generations of oppression and government-sanctioned and enabled theft and confiscation followed. Modern day colonial governments, seeking legitimacy and shamed by their comparison to racist apartheid South Africa, sought in the 1980s and 1990s to redress the balance — moves resisted by rabid rednecks and bigots every step of the way, but, thankfully courageously carried out by left wing and conservative governments here in NZ.
Certain revisionists today clearly would rather rewrite history, and erase the inconvenient facts — and also ignore the devastation Western ‘civilization’ has wrought on indigenous peoples (consider NZ Maori health statistics, justice system statistics and Aboriginal Deaths in Custody).
I’m all for the work of the Waitangi Tribunal. More strength to them.
Unresolved grievances fester and poison relationships. The ‘partnership’ envisaged in the Treaty requires resolution. Maori have been overwhelmingly, irredeemably the losers in the deal. For bigots (not you Ivan) to brainlessly abuse the whole Maori race as ‘greedy’ ‘brown-mailers’ seems obscene.
– P
No it isnt meant to be facetious. I personally have very strong bloodline links with maoridom – including rights to land and an impeccable series of credentials traceable backward many generations.
Personally Peter – i really think that many white bleeding hearts are tacking themselves onto this whole issue with little justification and certainly no mandate to do so.
I dont regard myself as a bigot … and i appreciate your initial exclusion of myself accordingly.
NZ History is a passion of mine – and i agree – little researched or understood by most people occupying ‘space’ in this country. The Treaty of Waitangi is not an answer – it merely perpetuates myths and problems.
Your response tells me – fuck the celts, britons, irish, iberians, etc etc etc … they have no mechanism for redress?? Its like the nuremberg trials being judged by representatives of nations who enslaved, tortured, colonised, raped/pillaged, committed racially motivated genocide etc etc (mostly within the last 2 centuries alone prior to the 20th Century.
As a citizen i look at it and say … huge (and i mean huge) amounts of time and money and resource have been sunk into Maori redress and still no result?? or so it seems.
I make no apologies to you Peter – or any who are of the same opinion as you. We live in the year 2012 and the world is going to hell in a handcart … and you think pandering to a group who offer nothing in return willingly is the answer to socities ills … or so it seems.
re the Celts and Britons, Pagans (and Druids?) seeking redress from Italy for the invasions in Julius Caesar’s day (two centuries ago): You can’t be serious.
At least the Scots and the Irish have moved to ‘refranchise’ their people operating separate Parliaments to their colonial oppressors (but not yet independent of them).
The Welsh language, so under threat from British colonialism, has been the object of taxpayer-funded moves (“time and money and resources” – including TV channels and university courses) to preserve it. But I guess some would describe that funding as a waste or ‘guilt money’ and decry it in the same terms as Maori TV gets criticized here.
re your pessimistic view of what’s been achieved in NZ by the Treaty settlement process since 1975: We disagree.
re your description of successive governments (National, Labour, National-led, Labour-led) acknowledging, apologising, and in some cases settling *proven, admitted* injustices and grievances as “pandering to a group who offer nothing in return willingly”: Yeah, we disagree about that too.
Thanks for alluding to your whakapapa. I won’t do the same for me and my kids. I avoid pissing contests.
– P
Never said a word about “whakapapa” … just stated some facts … as i view them anyway. Your view on that doesnt matter .. its what relates to me that matters – you are no different.
Pissing contests … methinks you are overstepping the mark. With my prostate problems you would be lucky if i even could approach the starting blocks – i presume you have a vigorous member that ejects a strong vigorous stream from its orifice … or am i being too personal. I dribble mate … but i ask for your indulgence and compassion.
Glad you mentioned the druids .. yep i potentially have those dudes in my bloodline as well … along with many people born in this collection of islands.
Maori are the tipping point for this nation … either the saving grace … or the rapacious ticket clipping indigeneous revenue collector … choice is theirs (and mine) …
Why is it we always think if they are “indigeneous” they must be good people??
So – nia glassie was a victim of white colonial domination and oppression … hmmmmm – wonder how nia would feel about that .. if she were alive to tell the tale. Instead she got stuck in a drier and then hung on a clothesline and killed – by the oppressed nation that has so much ‘aroha’ for her.
No, Ivan, I was long ago (in my early 20s) disabused of the false notion:’Oppressed people can do no wrong’. I never believed it, but I supposed I observed it demonstrated in some liberal lefty dole-bludgers (also known as courageous protesters for civil rights and political change). But it may have been my own unworthy hallucination.
To put it another way: Pendulums gotta swing.
Funny, I think Maori as a race have amply er … ‘contributed’ resources to this country. The rapaciousness has been overwhelmingly on the settlers/invaders/defrauders’ part. I guess we should be grateful there was no actual slavery or indentured servitude (two other ‘boons’ from Western ‘civilization’) in New Zealand.
Citing Nia Glassei’s horrific death in Rotorua seems thin, but your call. Have you heard of Fred West? A good clean-living lad from Herefordshire … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West
Or let me illustrate with this list from my current search engine of choice: https://duckduckgo.com/c/English_rapists
For every Oscar Wilde or Winston Churchill there’s a scumbag.
Welcome to the human race — whatever colour your ancestors, methinks.
– P
Morning big guy – thanks for the considered response … appreciated. Valid points made.
Let me try to answer you …
Of course Europeans raped and pillaged. Of course Maori were disenfranchised etc etc. The flip side is a patriarchal stone age culture with some quite corrupt practices including slavery – and genocidal tendencies expressed in the Chathams just for instance. Some of Maoris own leaders sold them down the river (some of them are still trying to make history in that same way now) and got away with it due to the shortcomings of their own cultural mores. Dont get me wrong … love Maori culture and am an avid watcher of Maori TV and cultural programmes on TV etc. Fascinated by the Maori Prophets like Rua, Te Kooti and Te Whiti for instance.
Of course all cultures have rapists. Of course all cultures have criminals – undisputed – and i never suggested otherwise. But doesnt it just make you feel vaguely uncomfortable to see the statistics playing out – even taking out media hype and misrepresentation?
Citing Nia Glassie isnt ‘thin’ … the perpetrators lived in an area steeped in the culture and with open and easy access to that culture – but it made no difference. That same Nia Glassie situation is still played out every month in this country or so it seems. But maori always seem to be blaming whitey? or am i mistaken. Millions of dollars of resource available – but either not being correctly applied … or simply not on offer for the important things.
Your last point … “welcome to the human race” – very apt and exactly what i am saying. But maori appear fixated on setting themselves apart from the rest of humanity as a special case. Thats how it appears to many people – and you cant blame them for having that impression either.
Fair points made by you Peter – again thanks for same.
Cheers Ivan,
You said…
“The flip side is a patriarchal stone age culture with some quite corrupt practices including slavery – and genocidal tendencies expressed in the Chathams just for instance.”
… which kinda reminds me of the shifting goal posts George W Bush laid out for invading Iraq when the WMD he hallucinated as justification were not found: regime change.
The colonialisation of Aotearoa by the British (competing with other ‘first world’ colonisers, of course) was all about grabbing the resources of these islands by whatever means. Religious colonisers like the Williamses were pawns or accomplices … with all due respect to my Hawkes Bay neighbours who have been so generous to me.
The racist nutjob who said something like, “We’ve taken Maori from the stone age to the space age and they haven’t said thank you” misses the point that as a race, Maori have paid for that progress with virtually their entire country.
The alienation of the ‘native’ from their lands, fisheries and estates was performed with breathtaking speed and efficiency … as befits a ‘superior culture’ the Victorian British settlers/invaders/defrauders would no doubt have said.
Their expectation was that the Maori culture would die out. Wrong.
This unverifiable comment from you betrays the ‘problem’ which I identify as a human condition and refer to repeatedly in discussions here on thePaepae.com
“But maori appear fixated on setting themselves apart from the rest of humanity as a special case.”
I don’t want to sound aggressive or insulting when I tell you that I see that as blatant stereotyping of a homogenous ‘the other’. (That’s also what I responded to in Graeme’s recent comment about ‘the Democrats’ supposedly ‘not sparing a moments thought’ for murdered babies.)
You say: ‘Maori appear fixated…’ ‘…Maori always seem to be blaming whitey?’
What? Oh really? DO they?
All of them? Many? Most? Some? A handful?
And sorry, having ‘an impression’ doesn’t prove anything is true. (Ask a pollster or a marketer.) A lot of people have the impression that psychics (e.g. ‘Sensing Murder’) are real.
re the Nia Glassie horror, let’s agree to disagree about that. Perhaps it’s a false distinction but it is my working model to divorce ‘culture’ and ‘race’ from ‘class’.
I don’t have a Marxist bone in my body, but it seems we agree that the desperately poor, uneducated, alcohol & drug addicted, violent or criminal ‘elements’ are not confined to one race, country or creed.
Cathy Odgers describes a ‘pathetic heaving underclass’ with a contempt which I initially thought was satirical, not wanting to believe the worst of her.
Yes, it’s true we do have an underclass in this society, that’s inescapable. Why a discussion about remedying historic wrongs should bring all their failings into focus is not completely straightforward. It too reminds me of the slippery ‘regime change’ justification. ‘If we give the greedy brown people money they’ll just waste it.’
In the same way as domestic violence and incest are not confined to poor families or areas, so dishonesty, corrupt greediness, idleness are not confined to the the poor. Or the brown folk.
– P
You’re missing the point Pete … you really are.
For me – i’m one of those nutjobs who believes that technology and overcommunication is taking us backwards – not forwards. We are regressing – not progressing. So you wont find me saying how wonderful it is we took them from the stoneage to the space age. (i could well be a closet Amish).
It was (and still is often) a patriarchal stone age culture. I’ve experienced it. I’ve lived in communities and seen the outcomes of it. Its not an unverifiable comment mate – i just dont want to start some sort of nasty war by spelling out exactly how and when and where i was and still am able to verify it.
Thats the problem – no one is willing to go public and tell the stories about what really goes on behind the cultural facade. Maori are neither better nor worse than any other – but they have a concentration of highly negative issues all coming to a ‘point’. Nothing is ever going to be solved in this beleagured nation by one group setting itself apart after having received millions of dollars in cash and acreages and recognitions in ‘kind’ as it were.
“having an impression” was NOT ventured by me (and you well know it) as making it “true”. Now you are being a journalist. But impressions are reality to those having them – just as you have impressions but are highly skilled (like a lot of commentators) at dressing them up with an attached bibliography to look like reality. You are no different – and it all comes down to perception.
I deliberately used the words ‘seemed’ ‘impression’ and ‘appears’/ed’
If maori want to really progress – perhaps they need to understand (starting at the top levels) that this is the truth of it – at least thats the way i see it. There is a majority now of non maori in this country – no amount of pointing out the injustices is going to substantially alter matters at this point – thats what i think anyway.
Appreciated the reply.
As a footnote ….
#1 I hope Maori succeed in stalling asset sales – but is suspect their own aristocrats will simply call it a day at pocketing as much moolah as possible without due regard to the wider issues
#2 The country cant really afford continuing payouts, backdowns, concessions etc – or so it SEEMS and we are TOLD by those who believe should be ‘in the know’
#3 Only differences twixt Maori and others are … skin colour (excepting other groups of similar colour) and cultural mores etc – otherwise we all shit, shower, shave, have naughties, break wind etc in the same manner without any shade of difference barring some minor cultural issues such as which hand wipes one’s bum etc (but these are all just jots and tittles).
Thanks for your comments Ivan.
‘cultural facades’ are not an exclusively Maori/indigenous thing, as you will appreciate. Consider the brutality that went on, say, in England in Henry Tudor’s day. Consider 300 hundred years of kidnap and slavery of young Africans to drive the economies of the slave-holder colonies.
Patriarchal society, with hierarchy and elites based on bloodlines were the norm, wouldn’t you say? Certainly slavery and servitude were.
I appreciate being able to discuss these issues with you — and disagree about some matters of emphasis or interpretation — without the tone of the ‘debate’ sinking into the truly hateful gibberish I observe elsewhere.
I know discussion of issues around the Treaty of Waitangi can be contentious.
Thanks for staying civil about it.
– P
I am very civil about it mate. Also i am genuine and heartfelt about wishing to see a healthy outcome.
My Grandmother spoke fluent Maori – one of my treasured possessions is a 1930’s German Banknote signed by members of the 28th Maori Battalion when in Italy.
Your points about Tudor England are exactly right. What i am suggesting – is that there is something that needs adjusting in the culture and the way it is applied. By the same token – i believe there are many incoming migrant cultures to NZ that display similar signs but different outworkings.
Waka Huia profiled some various Maori Spiritual practicioners including of some of the classical maori martial arts some time ago which i video-ed … they also profiled the kids of these practicioners … they werent Christian in content i would have to say – but the thrust of it was brilliant – and had much to offer.
You only have to see the number of children surnamed Marsden and Williams in the far north to understand the rumours about the infidelities of the missionaries may in fact have some basis in fact. The missionary position may not have been accidental at all. then again – traditional tribal hospitality did have some aspects involving a form of “prima nocta” or similar.
There are also rumours that within the tight patriarchal setting – that incest is practiced – and Kaumatuas can misuse their position as it were.
The european equivalent – is of course, the scout master or schoolteacher or pastor or elder or priest, or similar benevolent authority (patriarchal) figure … the only thing in their favour ( a perverse comment i know ) is that they are more clearly identified and dealt with due to the non “cultural” aspect – no binding ‘mores’ in this day and age to keep it secret – ie Kiwi culture is open and cultureless in some sense. Within tight patriarchal societies (including islam etc) things can occur and the binding cultural mores keep a lid and a frame of reference around the act/s.
As for the Treaty of Waitangi – i dont have much respect for it. Common sense should rule .. but it simply doesnt.
Well said Ivan.
People including me don’t wish to ignore past actions. But continually effectively compensating a group which in my view seek handouts by almost using bribing tactics needs to stop. To use Ivan;s comment The country is certainly going to hell in a hand-basket if it does not stop. Peter you think your statements are just and PC. sure maybe 50 years ago. Now its time to say right we are all ‘one’ what ever hes entitled too I’m too (over simplifying I know but you get the idea.)
Peter, a couple of days later, but have you seen this:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/wr-hidesight-river-spirits-have-parliaments-backing-jf-p-127810. Animism being put in law.
And this: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/councils-should-lose-right-allocate-waikato-river-water-tuku-morgan-ck-127989. Iwi now wanting to be able to allocate water (read “Sell water”).
I can’t support this kind of stuff.
It’s starting to feel like a gold rush. i.e. Maori are getting pretty much everything they ask for, so why not keep asking? For more and more and more?
If I was in their position I’d be doing exactly the same! These are irreplaceable assets that can’t be duplicated (you can’t manufacture an new river) and so they’ve got to be wort some infinite amount in the future.
Want some water? That’ll be $x. Want to go kayaking down the Whanganui river? That’ll be $y. And so on.
But it has to stop. This is not what the treaty was intended for at all.
At some point NZers who are not Maori will call time on this surely?
Thanks for the references David. I skimmed Rodney’s ‘shock horror scandal’ article because, as he admits several times, he has ‘no idea’ about the ‘implications’, doesn’t really seem to know what he’s talking about …
I’ve never bothered investigating the invective of Maori bashers about Taniwha, but every now and then it occurs to me to notice the way Anglican ‘religious mumbo-jumbo’ (to use Rodney Hide’s term) is so entwined around public and military events in NZ culture (Pakeha and Maori).
Statements of establishment religious belief are made in such a matter-of-fact manner they could make prime material for Ricky Gervais or Rowan Atkinson. (Monty Python or ‘Not the Nine O’clock News’ has probably been there already.
As for the breathless report in the NBR re Tukurorangi Morgan’s casual musings about the new Waikato River Authority’s role … possibly, in the future, subject to government negotiations stepping into a water resource allocation role, well, it’s a new body with a specific focus:
It seems to me the government has set up a legitimate quasi water authority group with significant representation from the local Waikato Maori. I approve. I’m not alarmed by that and I think the NBR report is a thin beat-up on a theme.
I favour representation by people affected. (‘No taxation without representation.’) Our system of government and local government has historically under-represented and excluded Maori. I don’t know if the Maori Statutory Board system in Auckland is the right model, but I’m ignorant of it in detail. In practice it seems like a political target, but that probably just reflects conservative alarm and the RW radio talkback ethos of Maori-bashing.
I believe there’s been considerable discontent in Canterbury about the way the water authority has allocated water to local farmers … and disquiet about public debt for a proposed irrigation scheme which will favour private interests (‘But think of the exports!’ is the cry.)
Given your experience with local authorities over your property development, David, can you see harm in moving the allocation of water (not just selling) away from local government elected suits and bureaucrats a la Regional Council?
What problems to you foresee?
– P
Peter,
Saying you don’t understand something (or the future effects of something) and not knowing what you’re talking about are 2 entirely different things. And you’re linking the 2 so that you don’t have to think about what he’s saying, you can just write it off with a quick, glib one liner.
In fact admitting you don’t understand something, or how it will work in the future is probably just honest, and actually a sign that the person making that statement is actually a thinking person i.e. not just taking it at face value.
But I guess it’s just easier to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Which is why the decent politicians we get from time to time leave the profession pretty quickly because they make insightful comments and just get slapped down by mindless putdowns.
No point going into detail here, but yes even though councils have many faults I would much rather they allocate water than a particular tribe/iwi/community organisation.
[…] Remember this?: […]