Treaty and Maori sovereignty

In a followup to yesterday’s post Korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi here is a guest post on the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori sovereignty from Dr Scott Hamilton.

Alan Wilkinson claims that ‘It is perfectly clear that the Maori signing the Treaty knew and accepted that they would have to obey British law from that time on.’

As someone who has spent too much time in musty rooms reading nineteenth century documents, I want to ask whether Alan’s confidence in his interpretation of the intentions of the men who signed the Treaty might be misplaced.

Anyone who has studied the behaviour of the British Empire in the nineteenth century ought to be able to appreciate the difficulty of the idea that the British were very interested in imposing their laws and institutions on a small and strategically unimportant colony at the bottom of the world inhabited by a well-armed indigenous people. The British were masters of indirect rule. Even in India, the jewel in their colonial crown, they often ruled by giving local factions a large degree of autonomy.

And anyone who has read about nineteenth century Maori society is also likely to be incredulous at the idea that the proud and tooled up rangatira of Nga Puhi and so many other iwi would surrender their mana to a handful of British bureaucrats who lacked much armed backup and had repeatedly promised them that the Treaty of Waitangi wouldn’t mean a surrender of sovereignty.

If Alan thinks that everyone accepted that the Treaty meant Maori had ceded sovereignty in the nineteenth century, and had agreed to follow British laws, and that it is only relatively recently that a new interpretation has developed, then he should jump on Papers Past or read Keith Sinclair’s classic book Origins of the Maori Wars, and look at what the leaders of the colonial governments of NZ were saying when they waged war against Maori in the 1860s.

Colonial Premiers like Alfred Domett, who presided over the invasion of the Waikato in 1863, absolutely despised the Treaty, and continually described it as an irrelevant document. They held this view because, according to the Maori who had set up the King Movement and other ‘rebellious’ organisations and also according to the colonial office in London, the Treaty really did allow for Maori to exercise legal authority within their rohe.

The British would hardly have inserted article 71 into the Constitution Act of 1852 if they believed that the Treaty was incompatible with Maori legal autonomy. Article 71 states quite clearly that Maori tribes may run their realms and make their own laws if the British governor or the colonial assembly agrees.

Vincent O’Malley has pointed out that in 1861, when Governor Gore Browne sided with the land-hungry settlers in the colonial assembly and prepared to start a war to suppress the de facto state the King Movement had established in the Waikato, his superiors in London rebuked him, and urged him to use article 71, and let the Kingites run their own affairs and make their own laws.

Like the American constitution, the Treaty is a document that inevitably means different things to different people at different times. It is up to us to decide what the Treaty means today.

But the question of what most Maori and the British Crown and settlers thought the Treaty meant in 1840 and for decades after is relatively easy to answer. We only have to look at what Maori and British and settlers did and said to see that they believed that the document did not extinguish all Maori sovereignty, and did not preclude the possibility of Maori making their own laws.

PS Let me just offer a link to something I wrote a couple of years back in response to Kitty’s claim that ‘Maori were not the first people here anyway’:
http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/

Korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi

From

Morena Aotearoa. Let’s have a korero about Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

First off, can everyone please stop calling it the Treaty of Waitangi.That refers to an unsigned English translation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an agreement in Te Reo Māori which guarantees kawanatanga to the British and Tino Rangatiratanga to Māori.

Kawanatanga is a transliteration of governor taken from the reference to kawana in the Māori translation of the bible in reference to the Roman governors in place throughout the occupied territories of the Roman Empire. These roles were peace keeping more than anything.

At the time, the main thrust of the Māori request for intervention by the British was to provide policing over the lawless hordes of Pākehā who had settled in the North. Local Māori had become increasingly nervous about imposing Tikanga over the immigrants.

Tino Rangatiratanga refers to the absolute right of Māori to control their own affairs over their home territories, people, & resources.

Read together, Kawanatanga & Tino Rangatiratanga set up a dual governing arrangement with Māori & British responsible for their own people.

And this is how it operated for about a decade after the signing nationally, and for another 60-70 years in other parts of the country.

Te Rohe Pōtae, for instance, remained largely self governing until the late 19th, early 20th century.

This is useful, I’ve learnt something from it.

Self government and responsibility for one’s own people becomes tricky where and when extensive integration has occurred.

Under TToW, Māori never ceded sovereignty. This is not an opinion but a matter of law as determined by the Waitangi Tribunal.

But while Māori sovereignty remains intact, the practice of sovereignty has been usurped by the Crown primarily through occupation & force.

We are seeing Māori start to reclaim their sovereign practice through a range of activities that give expression to Tino Rangatiratanga.

And the more these progress, the more Pākehā NZ will have to become comfortable with models of dual sovereignty so common elsewhere.

And finally, the principles of the Treaty, as 1st laid down in the 1987 Lands Case, provide a good framework for the Māori-Crown relationship.

Principles such as partnership, consultation, active protection, the right to development, and so on form the basis of Crown engagement and provide a legal framework for assessing breaches of Te Tiriti by the Crown. Which is why the Waitangi Tribunal performs an important function in NZ society as the arbiter of that relationship and the adherence of both parties to Te Tiriti and its principles.

Hope you found some of that enlightening, and provides some ideas for reflection as we recognise today the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Certainly some ideas for reflection there.

Too many Maori, not enough chiefs

Breakfast has just had two contradictory items on the continuing mess at Waitangi.

First they interviewed Manu Paul who slammed John Key for trying to bring talk about the TPPA to Waitangi.

They have followed that with “former politician” Hone Harawira slamming Key for not coming to Waitangi to discuss the TPPA in the political debate tent he is organising.

Paul criticised Key for poor communication. The problem is who the hell should key communicate with?

Some say Key should talk to Maori about their issues. Others say they would have done everything the could to stop Key from talking there.

Too many Maori and not enough chiefs?

Waislangy

It’s sad to see how much Waitangi Day has become an excuse to have a political slanging match. Any celebratory aspects of an important commemoration are overshadowed by attention seekers being given attention by media.

No wonder much of the country ignores or derides the activist antics in the far north.

There’s ongoing controversy about whether Prime Minister John Key will attend this year.

Ludicrously, with claims that the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement was undemocratic and denied consultation, some are suggesting that Key be allowed to attend as long as he doesn’t speak.

So he is supposed to front up and remain silent in front of a haranguing?

This year the TPPA is receiving most of the focus and criticism, but if we weren’t having the signing this week the annual activist uprising would have something else to moan about.

To many people Waitangi Day is being taken over by opportunist activists, most of whom are from one small part of the country.

Just now on Breakfast:

“Let’s not lose sight of why protesters are upset. They are using Waitangi as a ground to protest the TPPA” MP Kris Faafoi

But protesters are ‘upset’ every year. They are perpetually upset. The TPPA just happens to be this year’s excuse to protest against the government of the day.

Many other centres have far more respectful commemorations of Waitangi Day but because they are uneventful they get little coverage.

So most of the country abhor or ignore what should be an important day for us, I suspect many Maori included.

There are still valid concerns about Treaty issues – from both Maori and non-Maori. And there are valid concerns about social problems in New Zealand.

But it’s a real shame that the closest thing we have to a national day is dominated by a small minority bickering, grandstanding and continuing with their perpetual whining.

Like any country we have unresolved differences and problems.

But surely we also have much we could be celebrating, together. This looks unlikely to happen with what has become Waislangy Day.

Waitangi could lead celebrations of what a relatively great country New Zealand has become, and there’s some attempt to do that, but the day and week are hijacked by harassing hordes.

Mixed Māori messages on TPPA

There are mixed messages from Māori interests over the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, with some individuals and groups strongly against it, while groups with business interests can see potential benefits for Māori .

Protests are expected at Waitangi this week, and a hikoi is on it’s way from Cape Reinga, with Hone Harawira coming out of his political hiatus.

Māori Television reports Hikoi against TPPA sends loud message from Māori:

Mana Party Leader, Hone Harawira says, “The TPPA is a new treaty or covenant by which government can steal, usurp our sovereign rights.  So I’m calling on the public to be united to retain our sovereign rights and not just sit hopelessly allowing it to happen.”

“If the horse has already bolted then it’s our Prime Minister who opened the gate and that’s the issue.  We must get rid of him and create a Māori government and a Māori parliament that will rid us of this deal that is no good for this country or its people.”

The march may have only just begun but it’s already attracting support from a diverse range of groups.

Heeni Hoterene says, “This march is bringing a whole range of diverse groups together all in opposition to the TPPA.”

Of course all groups who join an anti-TPPA hikoi will be in opposition to the TPPA.

But not all Māori groups are against the TPPA. NZ Herald reports: Māori see TPP benefits, risks

Some Māori business leaders say there are risks with the Trans Pacific Partnership, but people should look at it again to see the benefits it offers for the Maori economy.

Harawira is not likely to look at it again, but some Māori groups see potential benefits.

Paul Majurey, chair of the Hauraki Collective:

The Maori economy has been estimated at $40 billion and Auckland lawyer Paul Majurey, chair of the Hauraki Collective, said Pare Hauraki’s fishing and aquaculture assets would benefit and the trust was supportive of the deal.

It already exported to China and Japan and the TPP would open access to Japan where fish products faced stiff tariffs.

The agreement would also allow Maori to form partnerships with investors from those countries, as happened under the China FTA.

He said there were risks and it was natural Maori would be concerned about sovereignty and the erosion of Treaty of Waitangi rights.

“There are issues and question marks with any international agreement that involves our sovereignty.”

He said the TPP protected the Treaty and reserved the right to protect rights to traditional knowledge and plants, according to the Wai 262 finding.

Traci Houpapa, the chair of the Federation of Maori Authorities (Foma)…

…said the TPP had obvious benefits for Maori exporters and businesses and that would flow through to communities.

She said New Zealand could not miss the chance to sit with global heavyweights such as the US and Japan, and hoped consultation on the agreement over coming months would provide Maori with assurances about the Treaty partnership.

“People are wanting assurances that partnership is in place and isn’t impacted by the TPP.”

She was comfortable that other trade agreements had upheld the Treaty.

“And our expectation is this Government will do the same,” she said.

She said New Zealand was the only country with protections for indigenous rights in the trade agreement.

Taranaki-based Parininihi ki Waitotara chair Hinerangi Raumati…

…said most of the assets were in dairy and while the deal did not deliver as much as had been hoped for, she did not believe it was something to be scared about.

“If it benefits the New Zealand economy, it’s got to be benefiting the Maori economy and I guess we’ll see that in time.”

The protesters are likely to get much more media coverage than the supporters.

Green gender imbalance

When Russel Norman leaves Parliament at the end of October he will be replaced by next on the Green list, Marama Davidson. This means that the current 7/7 gender split will change to 8 female MPs versus 6 male MPs .

This shouldn’t be an issue but the Greens usually try hard to maintain gender balance.

To an extent it’s a quirk of a male MP resignig when the next on the list is female. But it could have been avoided by getting Davidson to stand aside to let a male replace Norman. There’s a precedent for this sort of list manipulation as two people on the Green list stood aside to enable Norman to replace Nandor Tanczos in 2008.

But Davidson is ambitious and is very keen to become an MP. She is rated highly in Green circles and they would have been expecting her to get into Parliament last year from number fifteen on their list, except that the Greens failed to improve their vote enough.

Davidson was understandable excikted by yesterday’s news.

was just stand up mighty for my ! I’m honoured up the wahzoo to be the 14th MP. Hugely thankful to so many of you <3

There has been a lot of excitement and congratulations.

Formidable wahine toa female MPs

So Davdson is highlighting her and their wahineness and Maoriness – I’m not sure that Delahunty would be thrilled with being separated like that.

And Marama Fox of the Maori Party might like to point out that Greens don’t have the only wahine Maori MPs.

Same for Nanaia Mahuta, Louisa Wall, Poto Williams and Meka Whatiri (Labour). And Paula Bennett, Hekia Parata and Jo Hayes (National). And Ria Bond (NZ First).

I don’t have a problem with this. Any party can have any mix of MPs they like. But for a party that makes an issue of promoting gender and race balance this seems to be a lapse of discipline.

Three wahine Maori MPs out of fourteen is 21.4% is about three times the population proportion.

There’s a total of twelve wahine Maori MPs (that are obvious to me) which is about 10% – about 15% of the New Zealand population is Maori so about 7.5% will be female.

Metiria Turei added her take on it:

Metiria Turei retweeted Alan

Or or or There will be 8 women in our caucus of 14 soon. All wahine toa.

So Turei is promoting them as representing strong, female, Maori, and seems to be applauding the female imbalance. This seems contrary to the Green ideal of equal female/male representation.

There are valid arguments for increased female and Maori representation to make up for past under-representation and to overcome entrenched non-Maori male domination.

But a party can’t be both gender and ethnically balanced and also promote and applaud imbalance without looking like their ideals can be bent when it suits some of them.

Green’s gender and ethnic imbalance is not a problem – unless balance is an ideal that mustn’t be compromised.

Native Affairs political debate

There’s been a lot of controversy around Maori Television lately with accusations that Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell intefered with and was involved in the calling off of a political debate.

There has also been an exodus of Maori TV journalists.

Native Affairs has often been an interesting look at Maori orientated politics. Tonight the debate that was supposedly called off will air – 8.30 pm on Maori Television.

So it’s my last show. Thought I’d invite some politicians on and talk about some controversial stuff

The promo says:

On Native Affairs we host our first political debate of 2015. Our leading Maori politicians are live in studio to discuss all the big issues.

Whanau Ora. Kohanga Reo. First right of refusal. And Maori land.

I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell will be there as well as Metiria Turei (Greens), Winston Peters (NZ First) and Alfred Ngaro (National).

“Some other country…”

I overheard a ten year old grandson being asked what he knew about Waitangi Day.

“It’s about the Maori and some other country…” was all he could remember. He was told what the other country was.

So I asked him where England was on the globe.

“It’s around the top I think” he said, spinning and searching. He gave up.

I showed him where England was, and to be fair it was not prominent below UNITED KINGDOM and Leeds, so I explained how that worked along with Scotland, Wales and a bit of Ireland. But he wasn’t very interested,

Also he didn’t know who John Key was. He seemed a bit more interested in an explanation of how our democracy and Parliament worked.

To a southern kid New Zealand is New Zealand with a few Maori mostly in other places.

The difference a macron makes in Māori

in Māori macrons can make a significant difference to what words mean and how they are pronounced.

Pronouncing vowels:

Māori has five vowel sounds but, like other Polynesian languages, each is either short or long. Short vowels are always written with ‘plain’ vowel letters.

Long vowels are almost always written with a macron over the vowel in this dictionary. The distinction between short and long vowels usually carries meaning, e.g. kēkē (armpit), kekē (to creak), keke (loan) (cake).

As shown there macrons can signify different meanings.

kēkē

1. (verb) to quack (as a duck).
Kēkē kau ana te pārera (W 1971:112). / The duck quacks.

2. (noun) armpit.
Ka kowhera te uira i roto i ngā kēkē o Tāwhaki (NM 1928:45). / The lightening burst forth from inside the armpits of Tāwhaki.

3. (noun) area under the wing of a bird at the place where the wing is attached to the body.
Ko te pōhoi taringa nō te huruhuru maheni o te kēkē o te toroa (TTT 1/9/1924:s4). / The feather ornament for the ear is of smooth feathers from under the wing of the albatross.

kekē

1. (verb) to creak.

keke

1. (loan) (noun) cake.
Ko tētehi o aua keke i waiho hei tukutuku ki ngā whanaunga, i ia wāhi, i ia wāhi o Aotearoa, o Te Waipounamu (TW 21/2/1876:72). / One of those cakes was left to be sent to relatives in each part of the North and South Islands.

http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&keywords=keke&search=
(hat tip marty mars)
http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/dictionary-info

How to type macrons

1. Copy words with macrons and paste to where you want to use them.

2. Character maps:

Find  by clicking the Start button Picture of the Start button, clicking All Programs, clicking Accessories, clicking System Tools, and then clicking Character Map. If you use this method often you might want to right click this option and pin it to your start menu or taskbar.

3. Add the Māori keyboard to your computer so you can type cahracters with macrons:

Māori Keyboard Windows 8 Installation

How do I add macrons for the Māori language in my documents? – Windows 7, Windows 8

Keyboard setup for macrons – Windows 2000, XP, Vista, Winsows 7
Typing Māori easily / Te māmā hoki o te patopato:

Useful links:

Download Māori Dictionary apps:

Kiwiblog redneckery

Waitangi Day brought out predictable grumping about the so called grievance industry at Kiwiblog, prompted by Finlayson on Treaty settlements.

The second comment was ‘kowtow’:

What “real grievances”?

These things ,if they did occur ,happened years ago,they are ,”historical”, in other words ,past and have no grounds today other than in the minds of those who will benefit.(Be they the elites,lawyers or anyone else in the grievance industry.)

And it only took three comments until Godwin’s law took effect – “Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis” – Fletch:

“We are determined, however, to put right the thoroughly and accurately documented cases of hurt caused by the Crown’s wrongful actions in the past.”

How bogus is that – 100 years from now a claim for this “hurt” will be in the offing

I suffer great “hurt” for the actions of the Third Reich against my family as do millions of others but I don’t see any recompense forthcoming from the current German Government – does anybody?

Number five was MH:

Ngapuhi need as much blood money as we can give them. The day other tribes can then sue them for confiscation of lands, enslavement, and internecine genocide will be an interesting test to validate their purported claims of nationhood under the Confederation of United Tribes and their signed declaration of Independence. Is that too much to ask? When have they apologised to other tribes? One sided morality and a scam unequalled.

The answer is that it is “our business”,”our” money to deal with as we see fit, and we can’t apply todays morality on aspects of “our” culture such as utu to pre 1840 conditions. Somehow the wrongs post 1840 are more important?

What standing then for verbal contracts between Maori. Hone in the breach. No honour amongst murderers.Yet it was the acceptance by the British of lands in possession of these war criminals that has brought about the greatest grievances. Who was there to speak on these victims behalf,where were the great oral historians, their mouths choking on the remains of their enemies oral historians. Full and final,right you are.

There were some contrary views but the redneckishness dominated (although thumbs up/down were more mixed). RRM

It will never end.

Contemporary generations of Maori ™ who’ve had nothing taken from them will continue demanding that free stuff be given to them.

And my generation, who’ve NEVER taken ANYTHING from anybody, will continue to pay and pay for it all.

It will never end, filth like Tuku and the Harawiras have too much to gain from perpetuating racial hatred to let it all slip away.

I have good working and personal relationships with plenty of Maori GCs who have nothing to do with the Waitangi Shit.

But I am SO FUCKING OVER THIS WAITANGI SHIT and the Maori ™ who are behind it.

David Garrett (yes, the ex-Act MP):

RRM: I totally agree with you.

BeaB: Boy, does Finlayson have you fooled! You are quite correct that he is smart and sharp..well smart and sharp enough to know that these “settlements” will never end.. No less than the government’s support partner in Parliament says so openly! “No generation can bind future generations” say Turia and Sharples…it’s in Hansard…What part of that do you not understand?

The taxes of my children and their children will be used – in small part admittedly – to make further “full and final” settlements.

It will never end unless there is either a break-away state, or a civil war.

It is common to see treaty settlements that redress past wrongs like illegal or unfair confiscations of land (much of which have been settled) confused with ongoing Treaty obligations.

Odakyu-sen:

The government should hold a referendum and ask the citizens of NZ whether or not to end the Treaty payments. Let the people decide; after all, it’s their money.

It’s common to see demands that Treaty payments end immediately, despite the fact that it’s part way through the process and would be profoundly unfair to those tribes who have not yet settled.

David Garrett again:

One of the several reasons it will never end is quite simple. The payments made thus far are a small fraction of the improved value of the land confiscated or otherwise misappropriated by successive governments. This is because no government could afford to make full compensation. That fact provides a good reason for continued and continuing claims.

If Key was serious about settling the Ngapuhi claim he would simply give them six months to decide who was negotiating on their behalf, and if the appointment was not made by then, declare there would BE no settlement…but that wouldn’t work either…See the preceding para…

It should always be remembered that the Lange government – advised by Palmer – started this crap when they extended the Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction back to 1840…

Garrett is one of the more reasoned. There is some other reasonable discussion.

Paulus:

For some years since Maori began to obtain by fraud taxpayers money thanks to Palmer and Lange I have come to the idea that in reality whatever the settlements it is not all bad for New Zealand unless the assets purchased are sold overseas, and they may well be.

It is because the money injected into the part Maori economy will be used up in time as it filters into the whole economy.

Many of their ventures will go belly up due to theft and or bad investments, which may well be the same thing.
What goes around comes around, but in different hands and again is spent.

But we must take recognise David Garrett’s comments in that when the part Maori lose their money and investments they will come back to the 86% of the population for more and more and more. Will any Government now state that “Full and Final Settlement” mean what it says – get stuffed.
Doubt it.

big bruv:

Two things….

1. These “real” grievances are nothing more than bullshit. Sure some bad things might have happened years ago but deal with it and move on.
2. Anybody who thinks that these settlements are going to be full and final is a moron. Our grandkids will still be dealing with bludgers using colonisation as the excuse for all that ails Maori.

Manolo:

“Some people say they want an end to historical settlements. Most people agree. I do. Maori want them resolved as well.”

I don’t think so. The Maori elites want the gravy train to continue until the end of time.
Where else would the Stone Agers get such easy taxpayer’s money?

Manolo is a frequent anti-Maori commenter, usually calling them Stone Agers. His views aren’t particularly modern.

Steve (North Shore):

Throughout History all land has been won by conquest – so get the fuck out of my wallet.

Note that these commenters are only a small proportion of Kiwiblog participants, and as per the post David Farrar is much more moderate and understanding of Treaty realities.

igm:

Until the Treaty is destroyed, Maori forget the past, and taxpayers’ benevolence ceases to fund election bribes, the better for all concerned. I, for one, am sickened by the word “Treaty”, and its connotations and interpretations, pandering to a select few fat cats that don’t give a stuff about the plight of their over privileged iwi.

jaba protests:

imagine the mayhem if every “1st people” of every country performed like SOME (and it is only some) Maori .. it’s bad enough watching the shit fights in the Middle East and Africa over this sort of issue.
Harawira, Sykes, Mair, Smith and their ilk will never ever stop protesting and demanding compensation for something.

Scott the Christian has different views to the early Missionaries:

I agree it is hard to see the process ending. White liberal guilt is inexhaustible. While Maori are quite happy to enjoy the transfer payments from the already overburdened taxpayer. I do think some kind of conservative government that believes in our future together as a nation may be inclined to finish the settlements.
Unfortunately both Labour and National are dominated by progressives who don’t like western civilisation and accept the radical views of Maori activists.

deadrightkev:

Chris Finlayson is a traitor in my books.

He has no justification handing over the legitimate birth rights of all New Zealanders to a small group of Iwi elite via the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal on the basis of compensation. It is a disgrace. If there was a proper independent legal process to analyse these treaty scams based on fact none of them would pass muster.

One day this whole fraud will come back to haunt the National party.

That comment got eleven thumbs up and two down (so far). I challenged him on it: “deadrightkev – how many corrupt treaty claims do you have evidence for?” That got three up, four down.

David Garrett:

deadrightkev: I would like to think you are right…but the youngsters coming behind us are now indoctinrated from about year 6 (standard 4) in “grievanceology”…how much we owe the dispossessed brown proletariat for what “we” have done to them…in 15 or 20 years, those kids will be in positions of power…already you and I and the sensible commenters here are minority voices in the wildnerness…think what it will be like in 20 years?

Kowtow responded to my (and another) challenge:

The Ngai Tahu one qualifies.

How many times does honkey have to pay for past “injustices” when in fact the wiley Maori entered into commercial deals with their eyes wide open and have taken advantage of white guilt ever since. The whole “process’ is a sick and very expensive joke on the taxpayer with active conivance from government.

The perpetual top up clause they got is also an appalling abuse of the taxpayer.

Just an assertion with no supporting evidence.

Graham2:

“The Ngai Tahu one qualifies.”
I agree Kowtow. Perhaps PG would like to read Twisting the Treaty, The Great Divide or When two Cultures Meet for plenty more examples.

wiseowl:

Late in tonight and reading this makes my blood boil.
Finlayson would have to be one of the worst people the National Party have ever engaged for anything.He is obviously not interested in the truth (although I realise the Tribunal don’t get presented with the real facts) and has sold this country down the road.
Many of the settlements are based on mistruths and porkies.

No-one has mentioned the absolutely shocking division that is being created by having separate Race seats and representation on councils and so-called co-governance which needs to be stopped in its tracks by some brave politician.
National have actually created a timebomb for this country and when Key said on radio that the treaty was a partnership I thought what a big let down.
The treaty is NOT a bloody partnership.

Ben Dover:

The truth is Maori were not the first people of Aotearoa.

The truth according to a few. No evidence, but Ben Dover continued.

Let’s see
Rat DNA that pre dates Polynesian settlement
two distinct breed of “Native Dog”

Hmmmmm so who were they?

Kupe having red hair in polynesian records?

all sorts of references all through their oral records of the

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

Patupaiarehe, also referred to as Turehu, Ngati Hotu and Urukehu (red heads), were said to live in large guarded communities.

Itstricky countered:

“Perhaps PG would like to read Twisting the Treaty, The Great Divide or When two Cultures Meet for plenty more examples.”

So, PG & Tom ask for examples of corrupt treaty claims and the best anyone can come up with is:

(a) A book labelled as being full of deliberate historical inaccuracies to try to divide the country across racial lines (not to mentioned being authored by a certified);
(b) A book written by a fully Christian conservative who promotes articles for the tin-foil hat brigade (bet ya he and Colin are good mates) and describes himself as a “professional controversialist”; or
(c) A book by an author who feeds off of people’s sky is falling self doubt suggesting that the country is going to apartheid if they don’t rush out and shout at someone. This review should be enough to give it away: The book needed editing, to tone down prose more than the message, lose silly sweeping assertions and to clean up many little infelicities and errors – I should think the author probably has a large case of small man’s disease by the sounds of it.

Right, good response fellas. I’m glad we located those corrupt treaty claims and reported them to Chris Finlayson pronto so he can take all that money back.

Newsflash! Did you know that not everything you read on Wikipedia is the truth? Similarly, did you know that anyone can publish a book? Sensational, isn’t it? I mean all my life I thought books were the source of all truth.

Time to stop picking up books that mearly reinforce your own world views. Try something different for a change.

Well, that’s certainly enough sarcasm for one night. I think I’ve lowered by humor reserves to the bottom of the barrel.

deadrightkev came back:

“deadrightkev – how many corrupt treaty claims do you have evidence for?”

I cringe every time I see Finlayson hand over millions of taxpayers hard earned money to an Iwi for grievance and I spit when I see him apologise on behalf of NZ.

I have spent a number of years researching the origins. Ngapuhi as one example were the core tribe that invited the Crown to NZ for protection twice. They signed the treaty ceding sovereignty forever at Waitangi and here they are effectively holding their hand out for 500 million? What is even more stupid is our dumb ass politicians will hand it over. More socialism from National.

Its time people removed their “we must settle any just and genuine claims of the past” tinted glasses and woke up. There simply are not any justified claims beyond the template grievance model manufactured by the WT industry. They are simply all lining up for a feed on the basis that “the other tribe got some so why shouldn’t I get some too”.

Kiwis don’t like what is going on and every poll related to Maori issues gets over 80% against. Is there a political party that will rise up against it? I wont hold my breath. Which party stands for upholding property rights?

Itstricky:

Kev, So your evidence of corrupt treaty claims comes down to an interrpretation of The Treaty that you read about in a book then…

After theses and further challenges the claims backed off.

And as usual no one is likely to have changed their mind. That’s Kiwiblog and that’s blogging- actually the comments on this thread have been relatively mild, but similar views aren’t uncommon in the real world.

As long as we have a few Maori claiming they should get much more from the Crown (all of us) there will be some non-Maori claiming that Maori have been given far too much.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,147 other followers