Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 25, 2016 5:13:36 GMT 12
Northern Advocate 25/10/16
NO SOVEREIGNTY
M. Armstrong should read the English text of Article 2, which says:
“Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”
As you can see, Article 2 confirmed that the chiefs, tribes, and families owned what they owned, and could sell what they owned, if they wished, at agreed prices.
There is nothing about Article 2 affirming “the status quo of te tino rangatiratanga, Maori sovereignty” as M. Armstrong claims.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Southland Times 25/10/16 (Also in Waikato Times 25/10/16)
SHARED CULTURE
Nobody is attempting to deny the right of a part-Maori New Zealanders to affiliate to a Maori kin group and embrace what they regard as Maori culture, provided they do it in their own time and on their own dime.
That means a shared common New Zealand culture occupies the public square. Any subcultural affiliations are a private matter for those concerned, funded and engaged in by those who value them, with no financial or other claim of any kind on those who don't.
For those who pretend to be indigenous because they are part-Maori and prefer to elevate that above their other ancestors, that's entirely their business.
However it is a different matter when these opportunists start trying to put their hand in fellow New Zealanders' pockets and colonise the public square in order to force the language and culture of their adoption on others. It then becomes the business of other New Zealanders, who are being compelled to pay or adopt something they don't want or value.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
NO SOVEREIGNTY
M. Armstrong should read the English text of Article 2, which says:
“Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”
As you can see, Article 2 confirmed that the chiefs, tribes, and families owned what they owned, and could sell what they owned, if they wished, at agreed prices.
There is nothing about Article 2 affirming “the status quo of te tino rangatiratanga, Maori sovereignty” as M. Armstrong claims.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Southland Times 25/10/16 (Also in Waikato Times 25/10/16)
SHARED CULTURE
Nobody is attempting to deny the right of a part-Maori New Zealanders to affiliate to a Maori kin group and embrace what they regard as Maori culture, provided they do it in their own time and on their own dime.
That means a shared common New Zealand culture occupies the public square. Any subcultural affiliations are a private matter for those concerned, funded and engaged in by those who value them, with no financial or other claim of any kind on those who don't.
For those who pretend to be indigenous because they are part-Maori and prefer to elevate that above their other ancestors, that's entirely their business.
However it is a different matter when these opportunists start trying to put their hand in fellow New Zealanders' pockets and colonise the public square in order to force the language and culture of their adoption on others. It then becomes the business of other New Zealanders, who are being compelled to pay or adopt something they don't want or value.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei