Don Brash championing Apirana Ngata, but…

Sir Āpirana Turupa Ngata (3 July 1874 – 14 July 1950) was a prominent New Zealand politician and lawyer. He has often been described as the foremost Māori politician to have ever served in Parliament, and is also known for his work in promoting and protecting Māori culture and language. – Wikipedia

From Don Brash’s Waitangi speech:

Let me make one other point about the dangers of dependence. Many years ago, at the advent of the modern welfare state, Sir Apirana Ngata, in my opinion one of New Zealand’s greatest Maori leaders – and a man I was privileged to put on New Zealand’s $50 bank note – warned of the serious damage which the welfare state would do to Maori society.

He believed that readily available welfare would erode the proud tradition of independence which most Maori had. And I believe his warning has been amply borne out, with a disproportionately high proportion of those on the unemployment benefit, and on the single parent benefit, being Maori.

Decades after he gave that warning, when I was Governor of the Reserve Bank, I met with a prominent kuia at her request. She wanted to talk about Maori unemployment. After a very long discussion, I finally asked her what she would want me to do if by some chance I found myself in the position of a benevolent dictator. Without hesitating she replied “Abolish the dole with effect from the first of January”.

I thought at first she was joking, and asked her to explain herself.

She said that “Unfortunately too many of my people don’t have many skills. They can’t live well on the dole but with three or four of them in the same house all getting the dole, and a few under the table cash jobs, they can live adequately on the dole, and that’s a disaster.”

She was deadly serious, and in a sense was simply echoing what Sir Apirana Ngata said 80 years ago.

Scott Hamilton (via @SikotiHamiltonR):


During his speech at Te Tii, Don Brash invoked Apirana Ngata. For Brash & other conservative Pakeha, Ngata has long been a talisman. They see the famous leader as an advocate of assimilation & opponent of statism & race-based policies. But how accurate is such a view?

Again & again, Brash has insisted that Ngata opposed state funding for Maori-specific projects. It seems that Brash has never heard of the ambitious Native Lands Development Schemes, which Ngata created & monitored after he became a minister in the Forbes government elected in 1928.

 

For decades Ngata had been trying to consolidate Maori land holdings. After winning his cabinet post in 1928, he was able to acquire govt funds to pay for the development of consolidated Maori land. One iwi after joined his schemes. Weeds were pulled, fences built, stock bought

From the beginning, many Pakeha politicians were suspicious of Ngata’s land development schemes. They complained of money being aimed at Maori. Ngata pointed out, in response, that for many decades Pakeha farmers had enjoyed subsidies & infrastructure spending denied to Maori.

The land schemes were just one part of Ngata’s quest to revitalise a nation devastated by war & land theft. He also worked hard to restore his people’s culture, founding a school for carvers & teaching dance to young people.

How would he feel about Brash’s denigration of haka?

Brash & other Pakeha conservatives have praised intermarriage, which they see as diluting Maori identity & thereby bringing them into the ‘mainstream’ of NZ, aka Pakeha, society. Ngata didn’t share their enthusiasm. Fascinated by eugenics, he wanted to keep Maori marrying Maori.

Brash & his ilk have a record of denigrating pre-Christian Maori spirituality, & of wanting it kept out of public ceremonies & off public sites. Ngata felt differently. As Ranginui Walker’s biography shows, he believed in the old gods & spirits, & awaited their signals.

Ngata talked of the ‘amalgamation of the races’ in NZ, by which he meant the entry of Maori into the institutions of the colonial state, & a role for them in governing that state. But he did not take this position because of the sort of fondness for colonialism Brash evinces.

Ngata accepted the NZ colonial state & opposed Maori separatism only because he believed the defeats in the wars of the 19th Century irreversible. When he became minister responsible for NZ’s Pacific colonies, he argued loudly against attempts to Westernise Niueans & Samoans.

In his speech at Te Tii, Brash presented colonialism & Westernisation as unqualified goods, & conditions for technological & material progress. But Ngata fought against attempts to export capitalism to Samoa, Niue, the Cooks, & defended those islands’ traditional economies.

If Brash wants to find precedents for his views in, then he should look not to Ngata but to the men who destroyed Ngata’s land development schemes. In 1932 papers condemned the scheme as separatist; in 1934 an all-Pakeha commission agreed. Ngata resigned from cabinet.

Last year, during an interview with Kim Hill, Brash invoked the myth of Moriori as a pre-Maori people. He was swiftly rebuked by Hill. Shouldn’t our journalists behave the same way when Brash egregiously misrepresents the facts about Apirana Ngata’s life & opinions?


It was actually December 2017: A play-by-play of Kim Hill’s medium rare roasting of Don Brash

“You see Māori as just another ethnic group?”

“Of course. Why are they not?”

“Because they’re tangata whenua.”

Don Brash disagrees with this, and brings up the Moriori, because at this point in every argument of this kind, where the racism is about as thinly veiled as a bride at her fifth wedding, someone brings up the Moriori, and every right-minded person listening to this screams at whatever listening device they’ve had to hear it from because that is a bullshit addition to every argument of this kind, and is intended not to continue the argument but to send it off the rails entirely.

This renders Kim Hill briefly speechless, she cuts the interview off with the most curt and savage:

“If only Sir Michael King were here today, thank you for your time, Dr Don Brash.”


Apirana Ngata (1874–1950), of Ngāti Porou, was born at Te Araroa on the East Coast. He graduated from Te Aute College, and later completed an MA and a law degree. He was the first Māori to complete a degree at a New Zealand University. He returned to the East Coast and became involved in improving Māori social and economic conditions. – NZ History

Sir Āpirana Turupa Ngata (3 July 1874 – 14 July 1950) was a prominent New Zealand politician and lawyer. He has often been described as the foremost Māori politician to have ever served in Parliament, and is also known for his work in promoting and protecting Māori culture and language. – Wikipedia

 

Leave a comment

95 Comments

  1. Gerrit

     /  8th February 2019

    This continual Brash derangement conveniently hides a third wave of settlement in New Zealand. Slipping conveniently under the Maori versus Pakeha argument radar.

    Interesting demographic statistic from 2013 census, showing the third ethnic landing and settlement of the next colonisation is well and truly happening in New Zealand.

    Middle Eastern ethnicity 1% up 35%
    Asian ethnicity 12% up 33%
    Maori ethnicity 15% up 6%
    European ethnicity 74% up 14%
    Pacific Island ethnicity 7% up 11%

    https://www.stats.govt.nz/infographics/major-ethnic-groups-in-new-zealand

    Quite how an official government statistical entity can get to 109% with their ethnicity breakdowns is different to say the least.

    I think it is too simplistic to call this a Maori versus Pakeha debate. It should be a Maori versus Tauiwi debate.

    Leaving 20% of New Zealander’s out of the debating chamber in regards sovereignty is alienating them and more importantly their vote in any constitutional reform.

    It is not just about Maori or Pakeha. Ignoring all other ethnic entities in the debate at your peril.

    Their votes counts equal to the others.

    Reply
    • Mother

       /  8th February 2019

      Mr Brash cannot understand the importance of Maori culture.

      Maori believe that their ancestors are with them and guiding them. They hold on to the meaning of mana as a sacred thing. The colonists muffed it terribly. The Maori could see their greed and impatience but it was too late because they had sold themselves out. The colonists failed to listen to God when they failed the Maori. They did not have enough love. I think it could be made right, but the Maori would need to leave behind paganism and the pakeha leave behind their pride and fear.

      Maori culture is hugely important. No people’s need to sell themselves out. On the other hand, there is no fear in love.

      Really, only Church has the answer to Aotearoa’s multicultural dilemmas. I think we are in a unique position in the world to make it all work.

      Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      Agreed, Brash’s derangement, which he must own and take responsibility for, is certainly a diversion and obfuscation for many … He gets all the publicity, distorts the facts – as with Apirana Ngata – and polarizes the issues …

      It’s where you got the “simplistic” or perhaps more correctly ‘infantile’ idea it is Maori VERSUS Pakeha or Maori VERSUS Tauiwi, of it being a conflict when in reality its a conversation, an ongoing relationship … (in which Maori go on and on and on demonstrating the most extraordinary goodwill) …

      Multiculturalism comes next in the conversation after biculturalism IMHO, not because anyone’s a lesser person or inferior ethnic group – that’s infantilism speaking again – but simply because we have a foundation agreement between TWO parties, hapu iwi Maori and The Crown …

      Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique brand of multiculturalism is and will be bicultural …

      Like the percentage of Maori blood in individuals, the percentage of Maori in the overall population isn’t going to change things one iota … constantly invoking this is simply more screeching from TIS sufferers … Thwarted Infant Syndrome

      We have historical evidence which actually involves Apirana Ngata as a central character, along with Te Rangi Hiroa and others in the Young Maori Party … who helped restore Maori from their lowest population ebb of about 6% in the 1890s …

      Brash and the Right Brigade are old dogs barking up the wrong tree … and its time the media and Aotearoa New Zealand public simply stopped following them to that tree any more …

      The REAL STORY at Waitangi wasn’t Brash’s pathetic rote-learned ‘speech’ at all, it was Reuben Taipari and the kaumatua inviting him, and the model of forum at which he spoke …

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  8th February 2019

        All the infants have a vote…the real story. Deriding their presence or thoughts derides your argument.

        “Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique brand of multiculturalism is and will be bicultural …”

        multi=bi… interesting arithmetic. Where multi equals many and bi equals two.

        Culture devolves from all the people…not by the shouting slogans of one person, no matter how blinker and partisan.

        Leaving out 20% of the people based on ethnicity is not going to ensure they vote (for example a constitution based on biculturism) they way you envisage.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          They are not being left out … Your infantilism is polarising the situation again … Multiculturalism will happen within a bicultural framework …

          I’m not shouting slogans … leastwise not any more than you Right Brigaders do …

          I’m simply trying to find an explanation for this brand of behaviour and its apparent NEED to rule the political arena …

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  8th February 2019

            Multiculturalism IS HAPPENING within a bicultural framework …

            Because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it cannot be otherwise …

            Amazing eh? Yet another exceptional Aotearoa New Zealand ‘Kiwi’ point-of-difference …

            Reply
            • Gerrit

               /  8th February 2019

              “Yet another exceptional Aotearoa New Zealand ‘Kiwi’ point-of-difference …”

              Only if you believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, exists as a relevance in a multi cultural society. Does it have relevance today or more importantly in the next 20 to 50 years? Look at the demographic figures I quoted. And ask. Do these people give a continental about an old treaty?

              Future constitutional discussions may well not include any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

              The infants might decide it has no future and is obstructive to a new and fair constitution.

              Then what? Well Maori could ask the crown to interfere and uphold their end of the treaty, but if the British crown throws it back onto New Zealand parliament to decide, the infants vote could throw it out anyway.

              Leading on from that?

            • Blazer

               /  8th February 2019

              Redlogix@TS…
              Yet the Treaty represents a landmark, a turning point in our history. I personally interpret it as something akin to the formation of the UN in the aftermath of WW2.

              By 1840 Maori themselves had just passed through a terrible inter-tribal genocide. In the period from 1800 an estimated 40% of their own population had been killed in the Musket Wars. And at the same time their more far-sighted leaders who had visited Europe, could readily see that the future was not going to be like their past. And at this critical, sobering, moment the leaders of their society set aside their historic enmities, gathered in one place and agreed on a treaty with this new world.

              In many ways the ToW is a triumph, Maori establishing themselves as the first indigenous citizens of the global super-power of the time, the British Empire. It represents Maori making the first critical step beyond conquest and tribalism, into nationhood. A quantum widening of the scope of their society that has enabled them to negotiate a treacherous and difficult journey into the modern world with considerable success.

              As with all human endeavours, the reality has fallen short of the dream, but a modern NZ is virtually inconceivable without the Treaty. It was the line we drew in the sands on a past where force was the rule of the day, to one where law became the force of our future.’

            • Gerrit

               /  8th February 2019

              New Zealand without the treaty may be “virtually inconceivable”

              But it is conceivable. That is the point am arguing.

              As the demographic change, a New Zealand constitution not based on the treaty is conceivable and it is right and proper to investigate how this would pan out as an option.

            • PartisanZ

               /  8th February 2019

              Two things will prevent a “constitution not based on the treaty” from happening IMHO …

              The influence of International Law

              And the protestations of Maori plus their Pakeha/Tauiwi ‘allies’ – or in other words all the people of goodwill …

              I saw them at Waitangi … There was about 30,000 apparently … and maybe 5 x Right Brigaders including Brash … approximately the proportions in the population at large …

        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          “All the infants have a vote” …

          Yeah, don’t we know it from the Donald Trump experience!

          Hence the need for both empathy and civics education …

          But what you’re saying is: If you can whip the populace into enough of a frenzy of fear-and-hatred for something … some imagined ‘enemy’ … and win their ‘vote’ … that’s all good …

          I feel a Godwin moment coming on …

          Reply
          • Gerrit

             /  8th February 2019

            Very Godwin law like. Those that disagree with you are infants and stupid Trump voters. Those that agree with you are adults, smart, left wing voters, who know what is best for all.

            You would have been right at home in the late 1930’s speaking German.

            Should I expect a knock on the door from you for “reeducation” enlightenment?

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  8th February 2019

              While you should definitely take responsibility and ‘enlighten’ yourself, I won’t be knocking on your door …

              It’s you that’s whipping up the fear-and-hatred … all this scaremongering about losing your “one man one vote” …

              Show me a reliable reference where anybody has said they should have more than one vote …

              Blackshirts and Brownshirts came from the likes of you … not me … and not contemporary Maoridom …

            • Gerrit

               /  8th February 2019

              You left out the one equal vote part and misconstrued the concept.

              Note the full statement; one person one equal vote.

              Never have I, or anyone I can think off, said one group should have more than one vote.

              If enough votes don’t want any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a new New Zealand constitution there will either be a new constitution based on that or no constitution at all.

              Your vote is equal to mine.

              Am reminded of a photograph taken late 1938 with “toughs” standing outside a Jewish shop wielding a bullhorn to stop people interacting with the shop keepers, when I saw the photograph of the Maori lady wielding her bullhorn to stop people interacting with Brash.

              Black and brown shirts can came from any direction or creed.

            • PartisanZ

               /  8th February 2019

              One “equal” vote then … miserabilis INSULSA … pathetic pedantry …

              In bizarre coincidence, when I translated that back to English in Mr Google’s Latin-English translator he came up with Tis pedantry … TIS …

  2. Ray

     /  8th February 2019

    Of course bringing up Moriori is a no,no.
    Not because of the hoary old story about them being here before Māori, that just doesn’t have legs.
    Rather what exactly happened to them when they were colonised by Māori, killed like dogs, eaten, enslaved, almost wiped out as a race.
    No Treaty for them!
    No Māori wants to talk about this bit of history and they will play the racist card if you do.

    While I support the teaching of New Zealand’s history I do worry about us having a “sanitised” version
    I note Ngai Tahu official history’s seem to have forgotten Kal huanga feud or rather war, cousin eating cousin

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      No Ray, bringing up Moriori isn’t a no no … Everyone who does it identifies themselves with the mark of Thwarted Infant Syndrome and we know who they are …

      I look forward to hearing from the Waitaha, Ancient Chinese and Phoenician ‘here before Maori’ people too … along with the inevitable Musket Wars, Infanticide and Cannibalism crowd … not to mention ‘Stone Age Culture’ …

      The relevance is so marginal as to be irrelevant … Who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi again?

      There’s 1147 of you … 0.003% of the voting age population.

      But here we are fucken talking on your terms again!

      Do you reckon ‘How the West Was Won’ is a sanitized version of American history?

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  8th February 2019

        “But … They can’t claim to be good … They did all these terrible things … He did it too!!! He did it worse than I did!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!”

        Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  8th February 2019

        Ray said
        “Of course bringing up Moriori is a no,no.
        Not because of the hoary old story about them being here before Māori, that just doesn’t have legs.
        Rather what exactly happened to them when they were colonised by Māori, killed like dogs, eaten, enslaved, almost wiped out as a race.
        No Treaty for them!”

        You answered with a patented Parti rant that didn’t address the topic and is little more than a poor attempt at a smear by assoication with weird ideas some fringe people have.

        Trev’s Elbow scores that exchange:
        Ray 1 – Parti nil….

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          Ray’s comment has got nothing to do with Don Brash championing Apirana Ngata …

          Nothing to do with Waitangi this year or with contemporary Maori political progress.

          It’s the cry of a Thwarted Infant … “But they did it too!!!”

          Well they didn’t do it on the scale Europeans did.

          Ray’s is the logical absurdities Red Herring, Reducto in Absurdum with Irrelevant Comparison, Diversion and Obfuscation all rolled into one …

          Salve of some sort perhaps …?

          Reply
  3. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    ‘No Treaty for them! No Māori wants to talk about this bit of history and they will play the racist card if you do.’

    Moriori had a Treaty settlement lat year Ray. The Waitangi Tribunal’s Rekohu Report, which was a basis for the settlement, was produced by a majority Maori delegation that visited the islands. Maori film maker Barry Barclay produced his acclaimed Feathers of Peace, about the tragedy of Moriori, at about the same time.

    Moriori were invaded by 2 iwi, not Maori as a whole, in 1835, and suffered genocide. They’d already had their numbers decimated by sealing and whaling gangs after Vancouver arrived in 1791. If his interview with Kim Hill is any guide, then Brash still holds to the long-discredited Best-Smith theory that Moriori are an extinct Melanesian people who arrived in NZ before Maori.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      Oh thank you Scooter74 … an adult voice in the conversation …

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  8th February 2019

      ”If his interview with Kim Hill is any guide, then Brash still holds to the long-discredited Best-Smith theory that Moriori are an extinct Melanesian people who arrived in NZ before Maori.at team to the rescue.”

      So scooter..what’s the real history of New Zealand? To say Brash is wrong ( I think he is), you must provide an alternative theory. And a theory is all you can offer. So Brash may be right.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  8th February 2019

        Wow … Corky … convolution extraordinaire …

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  8th February 2019

          You have Edison Best in your Library, Parti? I do.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  8th February 2019

            Who the hell is Edison Best?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  8th February 2019

              Elsdon Best

            • Gezza

               /  8th February 2019

              That’s a bad cock up to make when you’re trying to make Parti look uninformed.

            • Corky

               /  8th February 2019

              I wasn’t trying to make Parti look uninformed. The misspelling is a trifle.( to me) The important thing is I have the book and can prove it.

            • Gezza

               /  9th February 2019

              Which book? Your misspelling unfortunately raises the possibility that if you have one of his books, you haven’t read it, and I’d be happy to see your proof – because Elsdon Best is so well-known in the NZ historical & anthropological fields (he was born here in Tawa, btw), and as it is normal for you to immediately post a correction when you realise you have made an accidental misspelling, your credibility on this is now in question.

            • Corky

               /  9th February 2019

              What you think or don’t is of no importance to me. I have a poor memory for names, especially names out of the ordinary. That’s unfortunately how the name came out.

              I posted similar regarding the Green Terrorist Field Manual . Someone said I was all shite… I put the challenge out that I would prove that and to give me a page and paragraph and I would respond with what was said.

              No takers..of course not. Same here, nothing to prove.

              You are right about one thing. I have only skim read the book. It’s a big book. I’m not fond of history. I only focus read if I need to find a particular facts.

            • Gezza

               /  9th February 2019

              Need to see a photo of the alleged actual book in your alleged library please.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  12th February 2019

              He’ll have to buy it first.

      • scooter74

         /  8th February 2019

        The theory Brash is recycling, in a probably half-conscious way, was discredited 90 years ago, Corky. Elsdon Best and Percy Smith decided, on the basis on their interpretation of oral history, that Melanesians had reached NZ first, before being driven to the Ureweras, where they became Tuhoe, and Rekohu/Chathams, where they became Moriori, by latecomer Polynesians. Just after World War One HD Skinner, NZ’s first properly trained archaeologist, was able to visit the Chathams, and in his book The Morioris of the Chatham Islands he disposed of the Smith-Best theory, and introduced an alternative that has been confirmed by subsequent investigators.

        Skinner noted that Moriori were physiologically Polynesian rather than Melanesian, he noted that their language was very close to Eastern Polynesian tongues, he described the similarities between their artefacts and those of Maori and other East Polynesian groups. At the same time, he saw differences between Moriori and Maori culture that suggested a long separation between the groups. To give two examples: there are no hei tiki carvings on the Chathams, even though the hei tiki is ubiquitous in classical Maori culture, and many Moriori words correspond to archaic Maori vocabulary. Skinner suggested that Moriori were descended from a group of archaic Maori who had become isolated on the Chathams and developed a unique culture.

        Subsequent investigations have shown Skinner was right. Doug Sutton led teams of archaeologists to the Chathams in the ’70s, and did a series of intensive digs. He found that, over time, burials on the islands got simpler, indicating that stratification disappeared. He noted the presence of archaic Maori artefacts in the oldest graves but the absence of classical artefacts in more recent graves. Sutton suggested that archaic Maori settled the islands, and established hierarchical mini-chiefdoms based around the exploitation of seabirds, but that after the seabirds became depleted social complexity declined, and some of the most famous features of Moriori culture – egalitarianism, pacifism – emerged.

        In the late ’90s Lisa Matisoo-Smith produced the first comprehensive DNA test results for rat bones in the Pacific (because rats can only travel to remote islands with human assistance, they are treated as signs of human movement). Matisoo-Smith was able to make comparisons between the degree of the isolation of various island groups, based on the degree of DNA variation in the rat bones found there. She found that the Chathams had been very isolated after their initial settlement. Matisoo-Smith also found that rats arrived in the Chathams relatively soon after the settlement of NZ.

        There are many other sources I could cite, but I think it’s fair to say that no scholar today would disagree with the notion that Moriori are an Eastern Polynesian people, related to Maori and also the peoples of islands like Rapa Nui, Rapa Iti, and the southern Cooks, and that they lived for a long period in isolation on the Chathams. If anyone wants to take up the Best-Smith theory then they need to contend with the complete lack of linguistic and material evidence for it.

        There are still mysteries surrounding Moriori history. The biggest one, perhaps, concerns the nature of Moriori relations with Maori. The Hokotehi Trust, the organisation representing Moriori, currently holds that Moriori arrived on the Chathams directly from tropical Polynesia, and not via Aotearoa. The obvious signs of archaic Maori influence on Moriori are the result, they say, of return journeys Moriori made to Te Wai Pounamu, where they traded and intermarried with locals. Another view, put forward by the scholar Rhys Richards, is that there were two founding groups on the Chathams, one from the tropics and one from Aotearoa.

        But the notion of Moriori as a pre-Maori Melanesian people has been discredited since the ’20s.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          Excellent information … thank you …

          Now you’ll probably have to contend with some Waitaha nutbars …

          And GUESS WHAT!? That’s not what the fucken topic is about!

          Spot the Rightie diversion tactics?

          Precisely what Brash is doing all the time! We should create a word with his name in it to describe the TIS phenomena … A ‘Brashism’ …?

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  8th February 2019

            Take a breath, Parti. Read my comment..and then read Scooters. There was no right or wrong answer.. I was just sticking up for Don even though I think he’s
            wrong on this topic.

            I agree with much of Don’s korero ..and little of yours..but I take deep breaths.

            Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  8th February 2019

      Why did Moriori, and for that matter Tuhoe, get ToW settlements….. neither were signatories to the treaty so why should they get compensation. In the Moriori case there beef is with Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutanga and has very little to do with Europeans…

      Interested in your thoughts – your post below about Moriori origins is interesting…\\\

      Cheers

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  8th February 2019

        Orh Jesus … REALLY!?

        They got Treaty settlements because, according to the proclamation of Governor Grey, once nearly 500 signatures had been collected every native inhabitant of ‘New Zealand’ came under the Treaty … I believe the same proclamation annexed the South Island, Te Wai Pounamu?

        In fact I believe he proclaimed New Zealand British territory under the government of NSW before Treaty signings had even finished?

        The point is, Righties can’t rationally – let alone ethically – assert that the Treaty applies universally for cession of sovereignty and then say it doesn’t apply for Treaty settlements.

        You might need to look up “ethics” Trevor …

        Reply
  4. Corky

     /  8th February 2019

    Lots of truths across the board here.

    What I don’t get is Don was talking about Ngata re Welfare for Maori. What Don thinks, or knows about Ngata’s other actions and beliefs is not relevant in my opinion, unless Brash has opined on them?

    Now some may be thinking the Kuia sitting down to korero with Don over bikkies and bad coffee was made up. We don’t know, but I would bet it’s true:

    ”She said that “Unfortunately too many of my people don’t have many skills. They can’t live well on the dole but with three or four of them in the same house all getting the dole, and a few under the table cash jobs, they can live adequately on the dole, and that’s a disaster.”

    Seen that situation time and again.The more switched on bros don’t make an adequate living..they live bloody well. It’s the holidays overseas that are a problem. But that’s a trade secret I’m not at liberty to divulge.

    Moriori:

    I could say a few things on that, but.. Pakeha always bring it up.. Maori, particularly Taranaki Maori, seem sometimes hesitant to broach the topic.😃

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      I’ve just googled ‘Apirana Ngata on welfare’ and would you believe it … all the first references are The New Zealand Initiative, NZCPR and Dr Michael Bassett … Captains of The Right Brigade … so I’m going to need to see the source documents of Ngata’s supposed antipathy to “welfare” … and there’s this –

      “For Māori to attend to their own welfare they needed to have, or have access to, sufficient power to make decisions about Māori welfare. … And Māori MPs, such as Apirana Ngata, sought to operate within government to achieve Māori welfare through rural land development schemes.”

      https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/will-tuhoe-provide-the-welfare-model/

      An example of people having a conversation … in this case among themselves …

      This, of course, is another thing that really pisses off Thwarted Infants.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  8th February 2019

        ”I’ve just googled ‘Apirana Ngata on welfare’ and would you believe it … all the first references are The New Zealand Initiative, NZCPR and Dr Michael Bassett … Captains of The Right Brigade.”

        Your point please?

        Dr Michael Bassett ..an ex socialist who saw the light and discovered ”the promised land”
        of socialism was an 1/8 of an acres gorse covered plot with a tin shack and no running water. It did however have a disproportionally large long drop.

        Wise man.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          I don’t trust the Business Roundtable – NZInitiative – Doc Muriel & Frankie Newman – and their affiliates 1Law4All, Alan Titford et al – or Michael Bassett, a KiwiFrontLine stalwart, when they say Apirana Ngata opposed welfare …

          And the evidence seems to belie their assertion.

          Reply
    • Duker

       /  8th February 2019

      I’ve pakehas play welfare games too. Working couple with kids and a house….he loses a good job and they can’t keep up the mortgage. solution is to pretend to split up, wife who is working moves in with her sister while Dad is unemployed ,has mortgage and custody of kids and gets state support.
      Elderly with plenty of assets know how to shield them from any asset testing for situations where they need expensive care.
      That’s a sign of racism when you are ‘tuned into other races’ activities but ignore those of your own ethnicity occuring around you.
      Farmers mostly pakehas quite happily rort the system, ignore animal welfare and are very lax about their environmental effects. But the only problems are the ‘mythical few bros’

      Reply
  5. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    ‘Don was talking about Ngata re Welfare for Maori’

    And Ngata’s signature policy, which he pushed for 16 years before suddenly getting the chance to implement after the shock election of ’28 threw him into cabinet, was the Native Lands Development Schemes. This involved large-scale state funding aimed specifically at Maori – it’s exactly what Brash disdains as Maori welfarism and state dependency. Brash simply doesn’t know the first thing about the leader he so endlessly invokes.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  8th February 2019

      So, let me get this right

      Brash: On Ngata.

      ”He believed that readily available welfare would erode the proud tradition of independence which most Maori had.”

      That is wrong?

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  8th February 2019

        It is a) Questionable whether he even said it. Show me the source? And b) Not bourne out by his actions … Isn’t that ‘history’ Corky?

        Reply
      • scooter74

         /  8th February 2019

        The notion that Ngata opposed state-funded aid to Maori is belied by his Land Development Schemes. Another piece of evidence that can be offered against Brash’s claims is the unemployed relief that Ngata organised for Maori when he was Native Minister. NZ conservatives often mistakenly believe that the first Labour introduced unemployed benefits to NZ after it was elected in 1935. In fact, unemployed benefits had been available for many years, though they varied according to the skin colour of the recipient – Maori typically got two-thirds of what Pakeha received. Labour increased the size of benefits, and closed the hated work camps where single unemployed men had been obliged to labour.

        Ngata was a conservative, who opposed Labour’s expansion of the welfare state and disliked trade unionism, but he did favour large-scale state aid to Maori, through his Land Development Schemes, and also unemployment benefits for Maori who needed them.

        Reply
  6. NOEL

     /  8th February 2019

    Ngata opinions are a mantra for right suppor ters.
    Brash using them not surprising.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  8th February 2019

      Very glad to have seen Scooter’s input. Nice to see Donny’s childlike misunderstanding & misrepresentation of our history so comprehensively exposed and flushed down the dunny.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  8th February 2019

        He’s probably best to just stick to economics about which he probably actually knows a thing or two.

        Reply
  7. lurcher1948

     /  8th February 2019

    If only Brash put as much effort into the COMMUNIST CHINESE BANK that he’s CEO of,the real rulers of New Zealand than putting Maori down

    Reply
  8. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    ‘In many ways the ToW is a triumph, Maori establishing themselves as the first indigenous citizens of the global super-power of the time’

    I feel that both liberal and conservative NZers, in their different ways, have created a mythology around the signing of the Treaty. For Tories, the document extinguishes all notions of Maori separatism; for liberals, including many iwi leaders, it enshrines partnership as the foundation of a new nation.

    The notion that the chiefs and colonial administrators of 1840 could see into the future seems fantastic to me. There was no way of anticipating the waves of migration in the later decades of the 19th C. Nor could Maori chiefs conceive of the invasion and confiscation of their lands by the tiny and drunken force Hobson had around him.

    The idea that the Treaty made Maori into British citizens, and subjects of British law, is contradicted by the words of Hobson’s assistants, as they went about the country trying to gather signatures for their document. When Hobson’s team got to Rotorua they were asked if the Treaty would allow Britain to intercede in a local tribal dispute; Hobson’s emissary Busby shook his head. The British were happy to let Maori chiefs continue to govern their own realms, and when they made room for Maori in colonial legal systems they did not operate on principles of equality and one nationhood. The Juries Act of 1841, for example, established separate panels to try Pakeha and Maori. Governor Fitzroy created a system whereby chiefs could buy the freedom of Maori from prison, because he considered they had no place there. The Constitution Act that Britain bequeathed to NZ’s first colonial government, and which tragically was never properly implemented, provided for wide Maori autonomy – a level of autonomy that Tame Iti can only dream of today.

    The pressure to integrate Maori into NZ really comes during the 1860s, as colonists wage wars on Maori, against the wishes of Britain, and then reluctantly have to create mechanisms – the Maori seats, the Native Land Court – to bring them into the fold, on a very unequal basis, afterwards.

    Reply
  9. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    ‘By 1840 Maori themselves had just passed through a terrible inter-tribal genocide…And at this critical, sobering, moment the leaders of their society set aside their historic enmities, gathered in one place and agreed on a treaty with this new world.’

    The notion that Maori signed the Treaty because they needed British law to end the Musket Wars is popular amongst NZ conservatives, but there’s little evidence for it. The British had virtually no presence in NZ in 1840 – there were just enough troops to protect Hobson and his team in the Bay of Islands. The notion that the British could intervene to stop and inter-iwi war is absurd, and indeed Hobson’s assistant Busby made it clear they wouldn’t be doing that when he visited Rotorua in 1840.

    The Musket Wars were devastating for Maori, but they had largely petered out by 1840, thanks to mutual assured destruction. As even remote iwi gained guns, they were no longer easy prey. The era of Hongi Hika was over. That’s why two small iwi invaded the Chathams in 1835 – they’d heard that those islands’ natives lacked guns, as well as a martial spirit. It wasn’t for the sea journey that Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama travelled so far. They were desperate to find a people who weren’t armed.

    Those who claim the Treaty was necessary to end inter-iwi violence also ignore the mechanisms that existed within Maori society to end wars and disputes. Intermarriage and peace ceremonies were traditionally ways of burying the hatchet. A famous tree in Auckland’s Domain records the peace that the Tainui chief Te Wherowhero brokered between Nga Puhi and Ngati Whatua, well before the signing of the Treaty.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      That’s the sound of me singing your praises, whoever you are.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  8th February 2019

      where did all those muskets come from?

      Chiefs that visited Europe were not impressed by what they saw?

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  8th February 2019

      The Maori may not have thought the British could intervene, but the British certainly thought of the need to have direct control so they could intervene, mainly through the traders of weapons and encouraged by missionaries to do so.

      As we can see Tikanga warfare continues to this day, as a ritualised and stylised version, using the best weapons of the 21st century …better known as ‘lawfare’

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  8th February 2019

        Where there is the imposition of unjust law or ‘lawcupation’* surely there will always be justified ‘lawfare’?

        Cannabis Law …

        * # 211 (I think?)

        Reply
  10. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    Sorry, I’m Scott Hamilton. For some reason my password came up as my user name here…good on Pete for getting these debates going on his blog. Reminds me of the golden days of blogging, back in 2010-11…

    Reply
  11. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    Blazer, who were the chiefs that visited Europe you’re referring to? Hongi Hika of course visited Europe – and was rather impressed by the weaponry. He was able to acquire a lot of guns on his way home and take the wars to a new level.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  8th February 2019

      I think this from RL…has validity..sub leaders for Chiefs

      ‘ And at the same time their more far-sighted leaders who had visited Europe, could readily see that the future was not going to be like their past’.

      Reply
  12. scooter74

     /  8th February 2019

    I’m not sure how many chiefs had visited Europe. The notion that the Musket Wars represented ‘the past’ of Maori is a common one amongst NZ conservatives, but once again it goes against the facts. The Wars were part of the transformation of NZ by modern technology and economics. Suddenly guns were available, and cash crops had to be grown to pay for them. Potatoes were grown on an unprecedented scale, and sold to early European visitors, as well as the settlers in NSW; revenue went on guns, which were used to capture slaves on raids. The slaves worked on the huge new plantations. But by the mid-1830s mutually assured destruction and peacemaking meant the wars had petered out, with the significant exception of the conquest of the Chathams/Rekohu.

    Reply
  13. sorethumb

     /  8th February 2019

    In the first half of the nineteenth century, however, individual iwi considered carrying their martial culture beyond the shores of New Zealand. At least three expeditions of conquest were planned: to Samoa, to Norfolk Island, and to the Chatham Islands, which did not become part of New Zealand until 1842. All these proposed expeditions were dependent on finding transport to those places: and that meant finding a European ship’s captain whose vessel was available for charter; or it meant Maori commandeering a vessel for the purpose.
    In the event there were no expeditions to Norfolk Island or to Samoa because the necessary transport was not secured. But there was an invasion of the Chathams Islands. Two Taranaki tribes then based in Wellington, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga ki Poneke, hijacked a European vessel in 1835 and had themselves—a total of 900 people—delivered to Chatham Islands. There they takahi’d or walked the land to claim it; ritually killed around 300 Chatham Moriori out of a total of around 1600, and enslaved the survivors—separating husbands from wives, parents from children, forbidding them to speak their own language or practise their own customs, and forcing them to violate the tapus of their culture, whose mana was based on the rejection of violence.
    Was this a superior form of colonisation to that imposed by European on Maori? Did it respect the dignity and customs of the colonised? Did it acknowledge the mana whenua of the tchakat henu or indigenous people of the Chathams? It did not. It was what might now be called an exercise in ethnic cleansing. When Bishop Selwyn arrived in the islands in 1848, it was to discover that the Maori called Moriori “Paraiwhara” or “Blackfellas”; and it was to report that the Moriori population continued to decline at a suicidal rate as a consequence of kongenge or despair. Moriori slaves were not released and New Zealand law was not established on the islands until 1862, twenty years after they had become part of New Zealand. And it is that twenty years of neglect of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown that is the basis for the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon.
    http://www.sof.org.nz/origins.htm

    Reply
  14. sorethumb

     /  8th February 2019

    1832 – Earle, A. A Narrative of a Nine Months’ Residence in New Zealand, in 1827[Pages 101-150]

    The scene I have just described brings into consideration the subject of slavery, as it now exists in New Zealand. That slavery should be the custom of savage nations and cannibals, is not a cause of wonder: they are the only class of human beings it ought to remain with. Here slavery assumes its most hideous shape! Every one they can effect a seizure of in an enemy’s country becomes the slave of the captors. Chiefs are never made prisoners; they either fight to the last, or are killed on the spot, and their heads are preserved (by a peculiar method) as trophies. Children are greatly prized: these they bring to their dwellings, and they remain slaves for life. Upon the number of slaves a chief can muster he takes his rank as a man of wealth and consequence in society; and the only chance these wretched beings have of being released from their miseries, is their master getting into a rage, and murdering them without further ceremony.
    On entering a village, a stranger instantly discovers which portion of its inhabitants are the slaves, though both the complexion and the dresses of all are alike. The free Zealander is a joyous, good-humoured looking man, full of laughter and vivacity, and is chattering incessantly; but the slaves have invariably a squalid dejected look; they are never seen to smile, and appear literally half starved. The beauties characteristic of a New Zealander are his teeth and hair: the latter, in particular, is his pride and study; but the slaves have their heads half shorn. The male slave is not allowed to marry; and any intercourse with a female, if discovered, is generally punished by death. Never was there a body of men so completely cut off from all society as these poor slaves; they never can count, with certainty, on a single moment of life, as the savage caprice of their master may instantly deprive them of it. If, by chance, a slave should belong to a kind and good master, an accident happening to him, or any of his family, will probably prove equally fatal to the slave, as some are generally sacrificed on the death of a chief.
    Thus these poor slaves are deprived of every hope and stimulus by which all other classes and individuals are animated; no good conduct of theirs towards their master, no attachment to his person or family, no fidelity or long service can ensure kind treatment. If the slave effect his escape to his own part of the country, he is there treated with contempt; and when he dies (if a natural death), his body is dragged to the outside of the village, there to be made sport of by the children, or to furnish food for the dogs! but more frequently his fate is to receive a fatal blow in a fit of passion, and then be devoured by his brutal master! Even the female slaves who, if pretty, are frequently taken as wives by their conquerors, have not a much greater chance of happiness, all being dependent upon the caprice of their owners.
    http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document?wid=300&page=0&action=null

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  8th February 2019

      You realize he was writing before Britain officially abolished slavery in 1834, don’t you?

      In fact he could more-or-less be describing slavery almost anywhere in the world at that time, particularly the Americas …

      And the systematic genocides of 100 million people in the Americas by Europeans.

      And aside from that: What the fuck has it got to do with contemporary issues or the topic at hand?

      Thwarted Infant Syndrome diversion again.

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  8th February 2019

        Regardless of national history, the rise of left-modernism in the high culture prompted an attack on majority ethnicity. For settler societies, this meant a dual focus on aboriginals as dispossessed natives and non-white immigrants as a welcome source of diversity who experience discrimination. In Australia, it’s common for progressives to preface their talks by thanking the local aboriginal tribe as the ‘rightful owners of the land’, and this was also a demand of the Evergreen State protesters. In 1998, Australia formalized white repentance in the form of a National “Sorry Day’ [71] Genocide against aboriginals is important to expose but needs to be contextualised. As Jared Diamond outlines in Guns Germs and Steel,, agriculturalists have replaced hunter-gatherers — mainly due to differences in immunity to animal-borne diseases — throughout human history. This is as true of the Bantu cattle-herding ancestors of African Americans, largely wiped out the indigenous pygmy and San peoples of Central and Southern Africa, as it is of Europeans in the New World. We also know that the chance of being violently killed is ten times higher in hunter-gatherer societies than in agricultural civilizations [2] On the Great Plains, the Comanche were able to master the Western technology of horsemanship before white settlement and used this to brutally conquer other Amerindian groups, nearly wiping out the Apache. None of which means today’s Comanche should feel ashamed of their identity and dwell on the foibles of their ancestors. A balanced perspective which acknowledges positives and negatives of Western settlement rather than a ‘social-justice’ lens narrowly focused on white original sin would be considerably truer to the facts. It may also be the case that, as McWhorter writes for African-Americans, the focus on white guilt removes a sense of agency from aboriginal groups, worsening their plight. Victim status may bring lower resilience and worse social outcomes. As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt point out, the ideology of victimhood elevates precisely those habits of mind — such as viewing others’ innocent statements as malign or relying on emotional reasoning (`I feel it, it must be true’) —which produce depression and anxiety. Cognitivie behavioural therapy (CBT) is explicitly designed to correct such neuroses through building resilience, yet left-modernist ideology seems intent on doing the opposite. It’s certainly the case that the severe problems of suicide and substance abuse among Canadian and Australian aboriginal peoples haven’t improved since the 1960’s. Anti-Western tropes can also be used by developing-world politicians like Robert Mugabe who leaned on postcolonial leftist arguments to deflect attention from his misdeeds.
        Eric Kaufman – White shift

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  8th February 2019

          So ……………….???

          Reply
          • sorethumb

             /  8th February 2019

            You , Scott Hamilton and Colonel sanders Protestor Pac (Left wings and [ ]) are interesting too!

            Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  8th February 2019

          Many modern problems in the area are rooted in the Indian Ocean slave trade—a scourge that was distinct from the better known slave trade that preyed on West Africa. In the eastern part of the continent, there was little to no European involvement. The practice was indigenous and ancient, and lasted more than a thousand years.
          https://quillette.com/2019/02/06/understanding-modern-african-horrors-by-way-of-the-indian-ocean-slave-trade/

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  9th February 2019

            So ……….???

            Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  9th February 2019

            Oh, I get it …. “understanding” … Yeah, great … interesting information …

            Used to obfuscate, divert and imply comparative justification … GFY!

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  9th February 2019

              I think the wiser approach to sorethumb has been to do what most posters have been doing for some time which is just to skim past without comment & let them sit there rather than provoke more, longer posts without paragraph breaks that are too tiresome to read.

            • PartisanZ

               /  9th February 2019

              I’m not exercising my wisdom on this issue any more. If these fuckwits are going to continue holding back the progress and development of my nation then they can have the full gamut of my thoughts and feelings on the subject …

            • Gezza

               /  9th February 2019

              Ok, fair enuf. I’ll just skip over your replies too because otherwise they mightn’t make much sense unless I go back and read whatever thumbs has posted which my policy is to skip over.

            • Corky

               /  9th February 2019

              ”I’m not exercising my wisdom on this issue any more. If these fuckwits are going to continue holding back the progress and development of my nation.”

              Our nation. And that’s the problem isn’t it, Parti. For you and me and them?

              You know full well blogging on the whole is lightweight stuff. You admitted that yourself a couple of days back. It’s tribal, vicious and vacuous.

              Even someone like you with many IQ points under the bonnet has to ration his resources.

              I do, however, know exactly how you feel.

        • sorethumb

           /  9th February 2019

          That quote is one paragraph. I’s a long book (600 pages) It isn’t on-line I had to OCR it.

          Reply
      • Mother

         /  8th February 2019

        That history is important because it raises the idea that Maori individuals have benefited from becoming a part of Christian civilisation.

        We desperately need to think carefully about what we as individuals wish to do about belonging to Christian civilisation. We cannot afford to let this issue slide. The old arguments that go around and around are a source of frustration. Individually, we do need to grow up.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  9th February 2019

          The problem with this assertion is that if we do grow up as individuals and apply a bit of research and critical thinking to The Bible this leads people to reject the Bible as evidence of both Jaweh’s existence and of Jesus Christ as part of a new God (The Trinity) and thus leaves us with at best perhaps wanting to accept some but not all of the wiser things he is reported in the Gospels to have said.

          A further complication is that there is no reliable contemporary back up evidence that Jesus The Messiah even actually existed, his reported miracles are most unlkely to be true, and stories such as the flight into Egypt following his birth appear likely to be fanciful.

          Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  9th February 2019

          I don’t think there’s any doubt that Maori have benefited in some ways from contact with Europeans … or that Europeans have benefited immensely from contact with Maori …

          What we’re dealing with currently – (among other things) – is an adjustment in the power relationships of this ‘contact’ …

          Christianity is playing a significant role in this, for better or worse, due to its place in Western Christendom as a ‘base’ of our civilization and due to strong Maori adherence to an assortment of its Church variations …

          Interestingly for me, the most fundamental ‘moral’ command of Christ’s teachings – “Do unto others” – is the same as the most fundamental ‘ethical’ command of Natural Ethics … as in Kant’s categorical imperative …

          So yes Mother, it has to be given consideration, but in the sense of Christianity, not in the sense of any one Christian Church …

          Reply
          • sorethumb

             /  9th February 2019

            I don’t think Europeans benefited from contact with Maori except for guiding over passes etc. Thanks to Maori we didn’t get to see moa or Haasts eagle.

            Reply
          • Mother

             /  9th February 2019

            Thank you Mr Z. I can’t match your intelligence, but I feel privileged you read my comment and I appreciate your response.

            You say that Christianity is a consideration. I so wish that my ancestors took things slower and were of the view that Maori culture and wisdom was a major consideration. I’m sorry.

            I’m not majorly intelligent like you, but some things I know.

            Some of us are willing to consider Christianity as a way forward? And as a way to make sense of our past?

            I agree that it is pointless now to pursue the virtues of any one church. However there is only one Christian Church and this is how it has always been, since Jesus came to earth. This is for the individual alone to contemplate.

            Reply
  15. scooter74

     /  9th February 2019

    ‘the basis for the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon’

    The Tribunal issued its Rekohu Report at the beginning of this century; Moriori got their Treaty settlement last year. Somebody needs to catch up, I think.

    Reply
  16. scooter74

     /  9th February 2019

    ‘You realize he was writing before Britain officially abolished slavery in 1834, don’t you?’

    There’s a widespread belief that slavery disappeared in the British Empire after 1834. But it continued to exist, in various disguised forms, until at least the end of the 19th C. Tens of thousands of Pacific Islanders were made to work the plantations of Australia and Fiji after being kidnapped or pressured into signing contracts they could not read. In my book The Stolen Island I describe the raids by NZ slavers on Tonga in 1863, and their consequences.
    https://www.bwb.co.nz/books/stolen-island

    Groups of Melanesians were brought to NZ as indentured labourers in the 1870s. The media of the time had no doubt: they were slaves. Here’s a NZ Herald article about a group of ni-Vanuatu brought to Auckland:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2015/06/savage-garbage-gatherers-new-zealand.html

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  9th February 2019

      Why would slavery disappear?

      It’s one of the pillars of capitalism in various forms … slavery, indentured labour, wage-slavery … the commodification of all human labour …

      Phases along a spectrum …

      Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  9th February 2019

      Moriori slaves were not released and New Zealand law was not established on the islands until 1862, twenty years after they had become part of New Zealand. And it is that twenty years of neglect of fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown that is the basis for the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon.
      http://www.sof.org.nz/origins.htm

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  9th February 2019

        I’m picking you could make similar arguments today: NZ Government Complicit in Slavery By Scott Hamilton.

        Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  9th February 2019

      Mountain out of molehill – activist academic alert.

      Reply
  17. sorethumb

     /  9th February 2019

    I’m not sure how many chiefs had visited Europe. The notion that the Musket Wars represented ‘the past’ of Maori is a common one amongst NZ conservatives, but once again it goes against the facts. The Wars were part of the transformation of NZ by modern technology and economics. Suddenly guns were available, and cash crops had to be grown to pay for them.
    ………….
    Alternative explanation.
    When Maori first arrived large birds were plentiful. They hunted them to extinction in a very short time but then had to rely on sweet potato which is subtropical. Good soils needed protection and the pa culture developed.

    Reply
  18. scooter74

     /  9th February 2019

    ‘New Zealand law was not established on the islands until 1862′

    What occurred in 1862 that makes you think that was the date when NZ colonial law was applied to the Chathams? I suspect that, because that was the year Moriori were liberated, it must be the year the colonists established control. But the facts suggest otherwise. There was a reasonable colonial presence on the Chathams before 1862, with – if I remember rightly – a resident magistrate and cop, and the freeing of the slaves was a product of economic changes and also the influence of Christianity. There was no order from colonial authorities demanding the slaves’ freedom. And later the Native Land Court, after sittings in the Chathams, decided to reward the invaders by giving them huge tracts of the islands. Moriori got less than 2% of the land. That was a major cause of complaint when Moriori sought their Treaty settlement.

    Reply
  19. scooter74

     /  9th February 2019

    ‘Alternative explanation. When Maori first arrived large birds were plentiful. They hunted them to extinction in a very short time but then had to rely on sweet potato which is subtropical. Good soils needed protection and the pa culture developed’

    That’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation of late medieval Maori history. It is totally irrelevant to the events of the early 1800s. What happened then is that the availability of guns, and the raids of Hongi Hika, forced every iwi that wanted to survive to acquire its own firearms. A way to do that was the creation of a big surplus of potatoes, which could be sold to settlers, in Oz as well as NZ. Slavery on an unprecedented scale was necessary to such large-scale production, and the need for slaves fuelled further raids. However as both the books on the Musket Wars, Crosby’s and Matthew Wright’s Guns and Utu, show, the conflicts were petering out by the middle of the 1830s.

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  9th February 2019

      Maori were in a state of intertribal warfare before Europeans arrived. European technology gave some tribes an early advantage so they got in and used that technology on their enemies. How is it about capitalism? Capitalism is just ecology (gaining resources through trade).

      Reply
  20. scooter74

     /  9th February 2019

    ‘the Moriori claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, heard in 1994, but still not reported upon’

    Once again, the Tribunal’s Rekohu Report was issued almost 20 years ago. You can read it online. It is very interesting, affirms Moriori’s status as tchakat henu of Rekohu. And Moriori settled with the Crown last year! It’s amazing that you could comment on this subject without knowing these very basic facts.

    Reply
    • sorethumb

       /  9th February 2019

      I was quoting Michael King who also notes:

      There was one further episode involving Te Papa that seemed to reinforce this message. Four professional historians (I was not one of them) wrote last year to Te Papa’s Chief Executive Officer, Cheryl Sotheran, complaining that the Moriori exhibit made no mention of the Maori invasion of the Chathams, to which I have already referred. Defending Te Papa’s representation of Moriori history, the museum’s manager of research went on the Holmes [television] programme to say that “a revelation of the truth [in this matter] would constitute a return to a view of history which has overtones of racism.”
      http://www.sof.org.nz/origins.htm

      Reply

Leave a Reply to sorethumb Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s