Hobson’s Pledge a ‘divisive group of haters’

Hobson’s Pledge, led by Don Brash, has always been controversial. The Māori Council wants them investigated, believing that an accumulation of statements and behaviour justifies a complaint being made to the Human Rights Commission. saying they are inciting racism and violence.

This is getting into tricky territory in the free speech versus hate speech debate.

Stuff: ‘Divisive group of haters’ in Hobson’s Pledge must be investigated, Māori Council says

The New Zealand Māori Council said on Wednesday it had asked the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to investigate the group, which is led by former National Party and Act leader Don Brash.

Hobson’s Pledge was formed in 2016 and campaigns against what it says is preferential treatment given to Māori.

New Zealand Māori Council executive director Matthew Tukaki said the council had made the move because “no one’s called them out”.

Plenty of people have criticised Brash and Hobson’s Pledge, but this may be the first time a complaint against them has been made to the HRC.

He hoped the HRC would censure the group.

He said the “accumulation” of Hobson’s Pledge’s behaviour and statements, rather than any one incident, influenced the decision to go to the HRC.

Tukaki also said Hobson’s Pledge was “nothing more than a divisive group of haters who would do nothing more than send us all back to the dark ages”.

“They may wear suits and drive around in late model expensive European cars … but they are nothing more than a gang of misfits that seek to incite hate and divide the country.

“They should be held to account,” Tukaki said.

“They’re creating an environment…in which hate is breeding and not just breeding but duplicating and replicating.”

Tukaki said the Māori Council was concerned that comments Hobson’s Pledge leaders had made in public constituted “incitement to both violence and racism, hate and the segregation of New Zealand society”.

This has a risk of creating publicity for what is  fringe group that is usually ignored.

Hobsons’ Pledge spokesman Don Brash said claims of racism were “absolutely outrageously stupid” and he was taking legal advice.

“It’s a serious accusation … not only of racism, but also of advocating violence.”

“I’m deeply saddened that the Māori Council, which used to be a group of eminent and respected people, should descend to this kind of silly name-calling.

“I have a four-year-old Korean Hyundai, for the sake of the record.”

An odd comment. Owning a particular brand of car doesn’t rule out being a racist.

Brash said if the HRC censured Hobson’s Pledge it would prove the Commission “has absolutely lost its marbles”.

“We’re in favour of a single standard of citizenship for all.”

That’s probably an impossible ideal.

He said the Māori Council was probably attacking Hobson’s Pledge because the lobby group “was actually having an impact”.

The complaint is that Hobson’s Pledge is having a bad impact – “They’re creating an environment…in which hate is breeding and not just breeding but duplicating and replicating.”

I doubt that Brash and Hobson’s Pledge are having much if any impact beyond those who already have hates about what they perceive as unequal treatment of Māori. I doubt they are breeding any more of it.

I don’t think that Brash is a hater, he’s just trying to preach to the already converted who think that non-Māori are somehow disadvantaged because attempts are being made to address disadvantages for Māori.

Leave a comment

45 Comments

  1. Geoffrey

     /  2nd May 2019

    If seeking to stop division is condemned as divisive, there would seem to be little hope for harmony.

    Reply
  2. Gezza

     /  2nd May 2019

    Has Brash been any worse than the Deputy Prime Minister, who has a long history, & even long-standing policies, of ststements that amount to the same “we are one people” “Treaty gravy train” & “Maori don’t need special treatment” complaints & criticisms as Brash endlessly intones?

    Peters has been shamelessly chasing & pulling votes from Hobson’s Choice-type reactionaries for most of his political career.

    Reply
  3. Gerrit

     /  2nd May 2019

    The Brash car comment was in direct answer to

    “They may wear suits and drive around in late model expensive European cars ”

    Brash is basically saying that the Maori Council is stereotyping Hobson Pledge membership as rich, stale, pale, European males.

    Interestingly to me is that the if we turn the very thing Hobsons Pledge is advocating fo,r is something that is an anathema to the Maori Council.

    “Tukaki said the Māori Council was concerned that comments Hobson’s Pledge leaders had made in public constituted “incitement to both violence and racism, hate and the segregation of New Zealand society”.

    Where does Hobsons Pledge advocate for violence? Where does Hobsons Pledge advocate for segregation? They actually stand for non violence and integration.

    The complete opposite to what the Maori Council stand for. The Maori Council very being is segregation of the one race from all the others for nefarious reasons and should by the same standard also be referred to the Human Rights Commission.

    If Hobsons Pledge speech is deemed “hate”, than the Maori council speech and attitudes is equally “hateful”.

    The separation between what “free speech” is allowed and where “hate speech” begins is getting smaller. For that separation barrier to be judged by the unelected Human Rights Commission is an affront to democracy.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  2nd May 2019

      Brash isnt inciting hate and division, but of course the MC feel that way. Probably Brash would say he is exercising his political and civil rights. Which is also an area covered by the HRC.
      I wondered what HRC would say on one of its other responsibilities – Indigenous Rights
      so went looking..
      https://www.hrc.co.nz/your-rights/indigenous-rights/our-work/maori-representation-local-government/
      Page Not Found

      This page doesn’t exist.

      As Hobsons Choice is a private body the Maori Council isnt and with 48 members ( is supported by legislation – ie maori wardens) there is no real solution, and in the current climate of some extreme hate out there with terrorist acts, this is a frivolity.

      Reply
      • Geoffrey

         /  2nd May 2019

        Dismissing a determined and sustained effort to divide our nation should never be dismissed as s frivolity. It is that sort of complacent inertia that has brought Hobson’s Choice to this point

        Reply
    • Don Brash certainly doesn’t drive a late model European car; I have been in his car and it was a nondescript Japanese model (very disappointing)

      Reply
  4. Corky

     /  2nd May 2019

    One thing about Maori elite..the can smell an opportunity a mile off..and the opportunity train they see approaching is hate speech legislation. As Muldoon said, the best time to put the boot in is when your opponent is down..or in this case, on their way down.

    The FACT is Maori do receive special treatment way beyond what the Treaty states or implies. Maori are also subject to different standards across a whole spectrum of social and legislative processes. Standards others aren’t privy to.

    As for those flash cars…I love looking in marae car parks for ”the odd ones out” 😃✔

    One things for sure. Look at Don Brash and you instinctively know: a car for him is getting from point A to B… nothing more. He places as much interest in his car as many Maori do
    with educating their children…zilche.

    ”I doubt that Brash and Hobson’s Pledge are having much if any impact beyond those who already have hates about what they perceive as unequal treatment of Māori. I doubt they are breeding any more of it.”

    Very true. A dumbed down younger generation… and PC bureaucracy, are hellbent on exterminating people like Don Brash. That’s why Don finds it so hard to get get a speaking engagement without protest. Laura Southern had the same problem.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  2nd May 2019

      They are hardly in the same class. Don is nothing like Lauren Southern, who is a white supremacist stirrer.

      His car is indeed ordinary, unless he’s recently bought a new one.

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  2nd May 2019

        White supremacist is how the left slur white nationalists.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  2nd May 2019

          What’s the difference?

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  3rd May 2019

          Nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism; nationalists believe that their country is the greatest and all others inferior. White nationalists live in mostly white countries by definition.

          White supremacists are from different countries. We all know what they believe. It’s highly unlikely that a white nationalist (llike Hitler and his descendants) is not also a white supremacist.

          If a white person believes that having white skin makes them superior to all non-white people , they believe in white supremacy.

          It’s not a slur, it’s a description.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  3rd May 2019

            White nationalists live in mostly white countries by definition.

            True, although in times past they used to invade, conquer, annex or, as in the case of New Zealand initially, peacefully colonise every part of the globe bringing the mixed bag (yes, there was plenty good as well as lots wrong) of colonisation to everyone else’s homeland. 😀

            One of the other distinctive features of white nationalism/supremacy (like any racial/cultural/religious variant) is that it seeks out enemies. Jews used to be flavour of the month. But after the Holocaust, and the foreign policy alignment between the USA and Israel (abetted in part by American Bible Belt end times Dispensationalism) they are now, except among alt-right cranks, anachronistically deemed part of the “white” Judaeo-Christian heritage. instead of Semitic outsiders engineering a vast financial, legal and cultural conspiracy to undermine white Gentiles.

            But Arabs (ironically also Semites like Jews), other Muslims, Blacks, Asians (although no longer portrayed as slant-eyed sneaky weaklings of previous Hollywood depictions) and all indigenous groups are part of the vast array of enemies, both real and potential, who are massing to destroy “white culture”.

            And if you are paranoid enough about the “them vs us” perspective, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As per Christchurch…

            Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  3rd May 2019

            …and white nationalism/supremacy finds its opposite extremist counter-part in the radical left dialectic politics of Marxism and ethnic empowerment, which operate on a similar self-fulfilling prophecy of conflict. In Marxism the enemies are socio-economic, whereas with ethnic empowerment they are racial. hence the two groups who clashed at Charlottesville. Chuck in “intersectionality” and the circle of (real and imagined) enemies widens into a never-ending conflict.

            Hence wise people attempt to walk a middle-path, eschewing ideological extremes and placing more faith in empirically sound public policies.

            Reply
  5. PDB

     /  2nd May 2019

    This is where people shoot themselves in the foot regarding ‘hate speech’. By abusing the term in order to promote their own agendas liberal/ self-interest groups in fact provide the best reason not to have more wide-ranging hate speech laws.

    It also numbs people to the actual issue. We see this when child poverty figures are way overstated, homelessness figures etc – the public switches off and the people who are truly homeless, in poverty etc get lost in all the bullshit & lies.

    Whatever anybody thinks of Hobson’s Pledge most sane people wouldn’t consider what they preach to be ‘hate speech’. In this particular case the Maori Council doesn’t like Brash and co pointing out inconvenient facts regarding the Treaty and are taking advantage of the current climate of fear to snuff them out. The fact they say it isn’t any particular thing Hobson’s Pledge says but the overall ‘tone’ of their message that is offensive suggests this. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Reply
  6. Duker

     /  2nd May 2019

    By bringing this up in this way , The Maori Council is showing a prime example of what is NOT hate and division.

    Reply
    • I dunno? Tukaki seems like a hater to me.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  2nd May 2019

        I think he’s coming up to the end of his employment contract and is worried he may be pushed out….I notice Marama Fox is A recent new member of the Maori Council.
        Matthew seems to be based in Australia according to LinkedIn…..all a bit odd

        Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  2nd May 2019

    Hate speech from a uniquely racist government institution. Hobson’s Pledge should complain to the HRC.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  2nd May 2019

      Hmm. On the face of it a counter-claim might not be too silly. I quite like Duker’s comment above:

      in the current climate of some extreme hate out there with terrorist acts, this is a frivolity.

      There’s some wisdom in that. A good reality check.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  2nd May 2019

        I’ll say. They seem to have forgotten what happened in Christchurch.

        Reply
        • sorethumb

           /  2nd May 2019

          Anyone reading the manifesto would conclude that in observing non European immigration Brenton Tarrant had an extreme reaction. Others observe the same thing but wouldn’t dream of doing what he did. So you cannot link the two except in his case.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  3rd May 2019

            He seems to have been looking for things to justify his murderous intentions. One cannot blame anyone but himself.

            Reply
  8. scooter74

     /  2nd May 2019

    I think the facebook group run by Hobson’s Pledge could be looked at; some of the stuff there may breach the Human Rights Act. I’m not masochistic enough to look at the page regularly, but I did trawl it a couple of years ago and write this blog post: http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2017/07/brashs-ugly-facebook.html
    It’s odd how a group that talks of the danger of apartheid in NZ seems so keen on South African and Rhodesian apartheid…

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  2nd May 2019

      I’ve never looked at it. On the face of what wrote there, there might be some value in the HRC having a scan of all content & comments posted on that site, it should being reviewed by the adminstrators for anything that clearly crosses the line between fair comment & evidence or example, but comparing the New Zealand bi-cultural Treaty remediation process to the situation to apartheid South Africa & Zimbabwe is ridiculous & potentially straight out racist.

      While I don’t pay much attention to Brash (or Peters) when they go down the “we are all one” & “gravy train” “get rid of the Maori seats” tracks, I don’t see their stance as racist, just out of touch, somewhat out of date, but in some cases raising some valid points about how far the Waitangi Tribunal has stretched the concept of taonga into some very debatable areas.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  2nd May 2019

      As per your cataloguing of the debunking of the “Moriori were Melanesians” myth recently here on Your NZ, Scott, whatever dubious credibility Brash had when handling NZ history was flushed when he resorted to the “The people that arrived before Māori were Moriori then the Māori slaughtered them” line.

      No Don, irrespective of the fact you are out of date by some 80 years with NZ historical scholarship, the point of Hobson’s treaty was so that we could try a different way of doing things where people don’t have to be killed. Not arguing for an updated 19th Century “survival of the fittest”.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  2nd May 2019

      And whatever else Joe Trinder has wrong – and I’d wager a lot – he’s on the money on this one:

      http://mananews.co.nz/wp/?p=10479

      Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  2nd May 2019

        That piece by Joe Trinder is bollocks. The fact that Don thought the Maori killed of the Moriori is being used to show up his ignorance however Maori invaded the Chathams and their culture was on display. Brash isn’t wrong about that.

        Reply
        • Kimbo

           /  2nd May 2019

          No, I think the “bollocks” is on your part.

          That Maori murdered Moriori was not Brash’s point in and of itself. Instead, he was arguing his superior European culture has superseded Maori, just as (i.e., a moral and pragmatic justification) Maori superseded Moriori…as if Moriori weren’t Maori.

          And with good reason it is used to show up Brash’s ignorance. I mean, come on – the guy has launched a movement supposedly appealing to a supposedly neglected fact and interpretation of NZ’s original constitutional development…and he gets a basic fact of that era wrong?! And not just wrong, but as the “Moriori myth” was used in past used to justify ignoring Hobson’s treaty,

          …and because it has long-since been debunked (I mean, ffs, didn’t Brash read Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand, a basic text for anyone opining publicly on our past?!)

          …he got it spectacularly wrong.

          Which equals a massive loss of credibility, and leads the casual listener to ask with good reason…what else has this ignorant misinformed man, who has stepped well beyond his recognised expertise, got wrong?

          What next from Don Brash? Maori are one of the ten lost tribes of Israel?!

          Reply
          • sorethumb

             /  3rd May 2019

            I don’t think he misread Maori culture – that is the important bit.

            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
            • Kimbo

               /  3rd May 2019

              OK, so you want to continue doubling down?:

              I don’t think he misread Maori culture – that is the important bit.

              Nope. Now you are moving goal posts. In Brash’s citation of the Moriori myth, martial nature and aspects of “Maori culture” were incidental other than he alleged it was rightly subjugated by force of arms by European culture…in the same way the allegedly non-Maori Moriori were subjugated by another race. Hence it was “might makes right” alone that provided the justification.

              Hence you have in fact confirmed what you previously described as the supposed “bollocks” of Trinder:

              …a celebration of British colonisation and the history of the Moriori people was “adjusted” to vilify Māori as conquest over a pre-Polynesian Moriori settlers.

              This false history was used to justify a benevolent colonisation of New Zealand by the British. A way of painting a picture if Māori destroyed the Moriori civilisation then that justifies what the British colonists did to Māori. It also helped undermine Māori as being indigenous to New Zealand Aotearoa.

              And then after cataloguing a series of pre-1840 Maori invasions you summarise:

              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…

              ….overlooking that Trinder himself (the alleged propagator of “bollocks” according to you) had concluded and implied that by 1840, due to a host of factors (including and especially the spread of Christianity and a desire for Maori of their own volition to move beyond the destructive cycle of the Musket Wars):

              They are missing fundamental basics of New Zealand history like the Treaty of Waitangi was a gracious invitation from Māori for British colonists to immigrate to New Zealand it was under no circumstances a colonial conquest.

              Damn right! Hobson had no troops to impose Crown government, and that remained the case well into the 1850s – hence there was no retaliation for the “Wairau Massacre”, and Hone Heke’s rebellion ended in a stalemate. But then peaceful government was the whole point of the treaty that Hobson negotiated! You remember that? The thing Brash is allegedly recovering?!

              Or didn’t Brash know that? That in the first instance the Treaty of Waitangi was a peacefully-negotiated agreement to facilitate a peaceful Crown governance and settlement? If so…then why was Brash implying that the later subjugation of Maori in the wars of the 1860s and in the years after was just and right, not on the basis of (to quote you) “a superior form of colonisation”, but because, as per the Moriori were replaced by the Maori were replaced by the Europeans narrative, “might makes right”? And when the whole ostensible raison d’être of Hobson’s Pledge is that we should all get back to a “true” interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi?!

              Nonetheless, thanks for confirming what is obvious – Brash and his Hobson’s Pledge effort with accompanying fanbois don’t give a crap for good and sound scholarly inquiry and discussion of New Zealand’s early history. Instead, it is a bunch of factoids, falsehoods and irrelevancies to be mined and fashioned to buttress the prevailing culture’s impatience that the quarrelsome and childish Maori refuse to be fitted seamlessly into the “one size fits all” mold as if they are brown-skinned Europeans.

    • sorethumb

       /  2nd May 2019

      I looked at it and the s**t came from anonymous sources. One posted a video of two degenerate white drug addicts behaving like dogs and a black man laughing.

      Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  2nd May 2019

      Cultural relativist or not, at least he doesn’t impose European concepts like “no full blooded Maori” left onto Maori.

      Also, Dutton doesn’t seem to address the pragmatic issue – that an assimilationist model has produced negative outcomes for colonised peoples. Whether the path we have been on for some 45 years is better is moot. But it is facile to argue that public policy is “culturally neutral”. Indeed, Brash doesn’t when he acknowledges that those with the cultural background of Magna Carta, Renaissance, Reformation, Lex Rex/the Glorious Revolution and the Enlightement will prosper best in NZ. Fair enough, but if this is the only country in the world where Maori culture “belongs”, then preserving a public space for that perspective seems valid. Equality before the law is fair enough. But “one size fits all” is not the same thing. And r at least, not necessarily. Especially when the corporate perspective of Maori culture is at odds with Brash’s (unexamined but assumed) rugged individualism.

      Plus Dutton thinks Garrick Tremain exhibits “usual brilliance”?! Oh, well. Brilliance, like equality, equity and justice is often in the eye of the beholder.

      Reply
  9. scooter74

     /  3rd May 2019

    ‘as if Moriori weren’t Maori’

    Although I very much agree with the thrust of your comments in this thread, Kimbo, I know that Moriori leaders and scholars are a bit concerned that they’ve gone from being considered, erroneously, as a Melanesian pre-Maori people to being ‘assimilated’ into Maori, and being considered merely another tribe. There’s a tendency for folks to throw the baby out with the bathwater, by rejecting the old Moriori myth and going on to reject the whole idea of Moriori as a separate people. But a separate people within the East Polynesian they certainly were, with their own language and culture, both of which developed in situ on Rekohu/the Chathams during centuries of isolation. They were as different from Maori as Pukapukans, for example, were different from Tahitians.

    The Moriori scholar Susan Thorpe says that her people believe their ancestors travelled directly from some part of tropical East Polynesia – the same region Maori migrated from – to the Chathams. Later, they made journeys to Te Wai Pounamu, where they traded and intermarried with groups of Maori, before returning to the Chathams. These contacts account for the archaic Maori influences on Moriori culture and language.

    Reply
    • Geoffrey

       /  3rd May 2019

      I suspect that “debunking the Moriori myth” is somehow a contrivance to minimise the horror of the systematic destruction of an entire people by Te Raupreha. Many attempts to white wash the extremes of the musket wars have been made by “scholars” in recent decades. In point of fact this period of wholesale slaughter was fundamental to the case for the treaty.

      Reply
      • Kimbo

         /  3rd May 2019

        Sorry, you are all over the place:

        As per Scott Hamilton’s post above, there is no “contrivance” about the “Moriori myth”. They were not Melanesian. Instead, they were part of the same general migration from Eastern Polynesia of what became the wider Maori people – with distinct local differences.

        I wouldn’t usually be pedantic about spelling on the inter web, and I’m buggered if I know how to use the bloody macrons that are now part of rendering Maori “correctly”, but it is Te Rauparaha (Ngati Toa). He was the “Maori Napoleon” (or maybe Napoleon was the Pakeha Te Rauparaha! 😂), so in the context of a discussion of the true facts of early NZ history it probably deserves the correct nomenclature.

        Also while you suspect his bloody campaigns have been downplayed by some, they are well known. The people of Ngai Tahu, for instance, haven’t forgotten!

        As destructive as his campaigns were, the invasion and subjugation of the Chathams in 1835 was undertaken by Taranaki Maori, albeit displaced in Wellington, not Te Rauparaha or Ngati Toa.

        As the destruction of Moriori was so brutal, well chronicled and remembered – such that it gave rise to the self-serving NZ settler one-race-replacing-another Moriori myth which Don Brash has regurgitated over 180 years later – there is little chance of it being (to quote you) “minimised”. If indeed anyone has attempted that.

        Yes, you are right, and it is a well-chronicled fact that the desire to escape the cycle of destruction of the “Musket Wars” as typified by the likes of Hongi Hika (Ngapuhi) and Te Rauparaha was fundamental to Maori eventually signing tne Treaty of Waitangi – along with the growing Maori conversion to Christianity, the desirability of trade with the outside world, the latter of which was facilitated by the increasing influx of European setllers, including and especially the Wakefield’s’ imminent New Zealand Company settlements, and the British Crown’s desire to forestall them and any possible French foothold…

        But on second thoughts you may be right. As all manner of claptrap about NZ history and race relations is spouted on the interweb by the extremists of the left, right, Pakeha and Maori, maybe Te Rauparaha is up for a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize nomination. 😳

        Reply
        • Geoffrey Monks

           /  3rd May 2019

          Thank you Kimbo. I stand by my general observations but now your superior knowledge as to spelling and individuals involved.

          Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  3rd May 2019

            Fair enough, Geoffrey. Any reason you still stand by your general observation? Then again, maybe you are best to concentrate on answering scooter74’s question below, as that is a more precise interrogation of your allegation.

            And what “superior knowledge” I have was courtesy of nothing more than the 7th Form Bursary History curriculum of the mid-1980s (Keith Sinclair’s was still the primary text then, from memory), and Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand, which, along with Goldenhorse’s Riverhead was compulsorily issued to every NZ household in 2003! 😂

            So hopefully my sources are beyond the nefarious reach of recent whitewashing “scholars”…whomever they are. Presumably their over-sized bone carvings reveal their identity? 😉

            Reply
            • Gerrit

               /  3rd May 2019

              kimbo@ ” Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand, which, along with Goldenhorse’s Riverhead was compulsorily issued to every NZ household in 2003! 😂’

              I must have been out when the delivery was made. You are making this up or was it for real? Whole streets it would seem missed out on this.

              No wonder Tauiwi are ignorant!! We did not get the memo!!

              Or you are talking rubbish?

            • Kimbo

               /  3rd May 2019

              Scribe and Nesian Mystic were allocated to those of a different demographic. And you haven’t worked out by now that damn near everything I talk is rubbish?!

          • Kimbo

             /  3rd May 2019

            …and just a quick perusal of King’s summation of the Musket Wars:

            …because of the nature of Maori kinship links, the custom of utu and the intense interest in how war was waged, the phenomenon of musket warfare spread…Ritual cannibalism was known as whangai hau – destroying the mana of the victim and thus leaving their kinsfolk without ancestral protection…the real horror of the musket wars began with large-scale Ngapuhi raids out of their own territory from the early 1820s. Every tribe against whom Ngapuhi had a real or imagined grievance became the target of a musket-era version of blitzkrieg…The carnage was considerable…The whole country was affected…Indeed, if any chapter of New Zealand history has earned the label ‘holocaust’, it is this one…Some small tribes were all but wiped out…Some of these actions involved considerable cruelty…deaths were prolonged and painful…Several tribes were displaced by fighting, and such movements always had consequences for other peoples…The population of the Auckland isthmus was depleted…Ngati Toa…were pushed out of Waikato and made their way down the west coast of the North Island, fighting and defeating other tribes…Ngati Ira…virtually disappeared at this time…Over a period of 30 years these actions had been responsible for the death of some 20,000 Maori, and possibly many more…They ceased in part because a balance of terror was achieved…Another factor was the influence of Christianity and its message of peace…

            Stark and unvarnished enough? Now I’m just counting down for Alan Wilkinson to chip in with his locally-gleaned knowledge that the commercially-savvy Ngapuhi of the Bay of Islands rented out their women to licentious Pakeha for the orgies that used to occur on the seashore of Kororareka/Russell, earning it the sobriquet, “The Hellhole of the South Pacific”. 😁

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd May 2019

              Chief Pomare did well out of that trade I understand. Living at the top end of Pomare Road one is a little sensitive to such history.

  10. scooter74

     /  3rd May 2019

    ‘the horror of the systematic destruction of an entire people by Te Raupreha [sic]’

    Te Rauparaha had nothing to do with events on Rekohu/the Chathams in the 19th century. You seem to be making an attempt to create yet another Moriori myth.

    ‘Many attempts to white wash the extremes of the musket wars have been made by “scholars” in recent decades’

    Can you cite one?

    Reply
    • Kimbo

       /  3rd May 2019

      “Can you cite one?”

      Oh, come on Scott. Geoffrey’s use of “scholars” in obligatory inverted commas is a legitimate and accepted citation for the vast left wing PC conspiracy encompassing Western academia, activism and government! 😂

      Reply
  1. Hobson’s Pledge a ‘divisive group of haters’ — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a 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