Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 30, 2016 4:01:01 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 25/10/16)
Betty Knight (25/10/16) appreciated your editorial about a tribal rebellion, wrongly called a “civil war” by you, but has picked up false ideas about Parihaka. It was the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands who chose non-violent resistance to invading Taranaki tribes and were butchered and eaten in response. With Te Whiti learning the story from returning tribesmen, he chose pacifism as a facade for his cult. There was no resistance at Parihaka in 1881 because sufficient Government forces were marshalled to render it obviously futile. That this influenced Gandhi is speculation.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 25/10/16)
Dennis Ngawhare (24/10/16) bemoans 800 words to get his pro-Maori propaganda out, unfortunately this privilege is not available to those that wish to counter.
That Taranaki was almost deserted is verified online "Further Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1861 Session, " by Charles Heaphy. “Taranaki that before the regular settlement of the country by the British, it had for several years been almost deserted by the Natives. ... “The Waikato conquered it in 1830 ... “A miserable remnant of about 30 or 40 Natives of the Ngatiawa lived at Ngamotu point in 1839. Futhermore Hobson’s emissaries were unable to find a chief of sufficient rank to sign the Treaty in Taranaki.
Ngwhare resorts to a moral equivalence argument by comparing outside conflicts with tribal maori wars. This bogus tactic is often used by marxists to suggest that two unrelated wrongs make a "right," or at least cancel one another out. Pukerangiora was just one example of Maori savagery, the Taranaki tribes slaughter in the Chatham Islands was even worse, as was the massacre and cannibalism at Auckland and Waikato by Ngapuhi.
That Taranaki tribal peace has stood unbroken since 1834 is credit to the British law system not tribal goodwill.
If Ngawhare’s flippant quote "At the end of the day history is only a viewpoint" is accepted then history becomes rumour, gossip and hearsay and ceases to be a worthwhile subject of study. NZ taxpayers will be chuffed to know that they have handed elite maori $millions in settlements based on someone’s viewpoint.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Sir, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 19/10/16
In his non-reply to my letter ( O.D.T, 13/10 ) the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mr Christopher Finlayson clearly couldn't be bothered addressing the serious concerns of a mere "man in the street" so instead went to the default position of political side-stepping.
I had simply pointed out ( to anyone who cares ), that appointing part-Maori to positions of social power and influence purely on the basis of their race and without public voting is racial discrimination, undemocratic, and illegal. Anyone not spell-bound by political correctness knows this. The minister's smoke-and-mirrors "explanation" may be acceptable in political circles, but not in real life.
He then tries to justify the unjustifiable by saying that unelected and racially discriminatory tribal appointments to committees of the Taranaki Regional Council ( now rapidly becoming common practice everywhere in New Zealand ), was provided for in the Taranaki treaty settlement. He states this as if he and his "advisors" had nothing to do with the said provisions of the settlement. ( "settlement", now there's a misused word ! ).
Are we to assume that the origin of these socially lethal "provisions" are to be found in some overlooked clause in the Ten Commandments?
He continues digging by saying that : "Iwi [he means "tribes"] will be able to contribute to decisions about their region through these arrangements".
Here he completely ignores the fact that by means of democracy, Maori, just like everyone else, have always been able, and always have done precisely this ; ( to an excess, some might say ).
The minister concludes his anti democratic / pro tribal smoke screen by asserting that Maori are "key stakeholders" ( more "key" than non Maori apparently ), and that their unelected appointment to positions of political power is "not a new concept". With this he abandons all logic because to appoint individuals on the basis of their race in a ( supposed ) modern democracy, is an extremely new concept !
To compare this with the perfectly legitimate practice of political bodies to appoint people not upon the basis their race but upon the basis of their specific individual qualifications and skills as advisors or consultants, is to draw a parallel where there is none.
Notwithstanding Left-wing political correctness, being born Maori is not a skill.
C R
Dunedin
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 15/10/16)
Tracy Milham’s message of peace (Daily News, 12/10/16) may do good but should not be based on a false story about Parihaka which was not a haven of peace, but the centre of a nasty cult.
Te Whiti when young attended the Lutheran mission. Later he was “ordained” a priest of Pai Marire, the Hau Hau religion and took part in the Hau Hau attack on Sentry Hill.
In 1835, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga invaded the Chatham Islands. From Wikipedia: "the tribes took part in a slaughter of about 300 Moriori, raping many women, enslaving the survivors, and destroying the Moriori economy and way of life. Some returned home to Taranaki." The Moriori were deeply committed pacifists, the men wearing symbolic tufts of albatross down.
Te W'iti and Tohu, lads when tribesmen returned, would have heard their tales of conquest. Later they adopted albatross feather symbols and a facade of pacifism. Co-incidence?
Occupants of Parihaka, illegally built on government land, disrupted road-building and surveying, amassed firearms and cash, sheltered Hiroki, wanted for murder and treated government officials with contempt. As a son-in-law of Tohu said later, Te Whiti and Tohu “were master word-painters who succeeded well in deceiving their listeners”.
When Government forces occupied Parihaka, Bryce’s presentation of overwhelming force made resistance futile so he succeeded with no loss of life. He, not the alleged pacifists, deserves the credit for that.
PRESENT activities at Parihaka may be pacifist but they rest on a flawed base.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Betty Knight (25/10/16) appreciated your editorial about a tribal rebellion, wrongly called a “civil war” by you, but has picked up false ideas about Parihaka. It was the Moriori people of the Chatham Islands who chose non-violent resistance to invading Taranaki tribes and were butchered and eaten in response. With Te Whiti learning the story from returning tribesmen, he chose pacifism as a facade for his cult. There was no resistance at Parihaka in 1881 because sufficient Government forces were marshalled to render it obviously futile. That this influenced Gandhi is speculation.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 25/10/16)
Dennis Ngawhare (24/10/16) bemoans 800 words to get his pro-Maori propaganda out, unfortunately this privilege is not available to those that wish to counter.
That Taranaki was almost deserted is verified online "Further Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1861 Session, " by Charles Heaphy. “Taranaki that before the regular settlement of the country by the British, it had for several years been almost deserted by the Natives. ... “The Waikato conquered it in 1830 ... “A miserable remnant of about 30 or 40 Natives of the Ngatiawa lived at Ngamotu point in 1839. Futhermore Hobson’s emissaries were unable to find a chief of sufficient rank to sign the Treaty in Taranaki.
Ngwhare resorts to a moral equivalence argument by comparing outside conflicts with tribal maori wars. This bogus tactic is often used by marxists to suggest that two unrelated wrongs make a "right," or at least cancel one another out. Pukerangiora was just one example of Maori savagery, the Taranaki tribes slaughter in the Chatham Islands was even worse, as was the massacre and cannibalism at Auckland and Waikato by Ngapuhi.
That Taranaki tribal peace has stood unbroken since 1834 is credit to the British law system not tribal goodwill.
If Ngawhare’s flippant quote "At the end of the day history is only a viewpoint" is accepted then history becomes rumour, gossip and hearsay and ceases to be a worthwhile subject of study. NZ taxpayers will be chuffed to know that they have handed elite maori $millions in settlements based on someone’s viewpoint.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
Dear Sir, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 19/10/16
In his non-reply to my letter ( O.D.T, 13/10 ) the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Mr Christopher Finlayson clearly couldn't be bothered addressing the serious concerns of a mere "man in the street" so instead went to the default position of political side-stepping.
I had simply pointed out ( to anyone who cares ), that appointing part-Maori to positions of social power and influence purely on the basis of their race and without public voting is racial discrimination, undemocratic, and illegal. Anyone not spell-bound by political correctness knows this. The minister's smoke-and-mirrors "explanation" may be acceptable in political circles, but not in real life.
He then tries to justify the unjustifiable by saying that unelected and racially discriminatory tribal appointments to committees of the Taranaki Regional Council ( now rapidly becoming common practice everywhere in New Zealand ), was provided for in the Taranaki treaty settlement. He states this as if he and his "advisors" had nothing to do with the said provisions of the settlement. ( "settlement", now there's a misused word ! ).
Are we to assume that the origin of these socially lethal "provisions" are to be found in some overlooked clause in the Ten Commandments?
He continues digging by saying that : "Iwi [he means "tribes"] will be able to contribute to decisions about their region through these arrangements".
Here he completely ignores the fact that by means of democracy, Maori, just like everyone else, have always been able, and always have done precisely this ; ( to an excess, some might say ).
The minister concludes his anti democratic / pro tribal smoke screen by asserting that Maori are "key stakeholders" ( more "key" than non Maori apparently ), and that their unelected appointment to positions of political power is "not a new concept". With this he abandons all logic because to appoint individuals on the basis of their race in a ( supposed ) modern democracy, is an extremely new concept !
To compare this with the perfectly legitimate practice of political bodies to appoint people not upon the basis their race but upon the basis of their specific individual qualifications and skills as advisors or consultants, is to draw a parallel where there is none.
Notwithstanding Left-wing political correctness, being born Maori is not a skill.
C R
Dunedin
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 15/10/16)
Tracy Milham’s message of peace (Daily News, 12/10/16) may do good but should not be based on a false story about Parihaka which was not a haven of peace, but the centre of a nasty cult.
Te Whiti when young attended the Lutheran mission. Later he was “ordained” a priest of Pai Marire, the Hau Hau religion and took part in the Hau Hau attack on Sentry Hill.
In 1835, Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga invaded the Chatham Islands. From Wikipedia: "the tribes took part in a slaughter of about 300 Moriori, raping many women, enslaving the survivors, and destroying the Moriori economy and way of life. Some returned home to Taranaki." The Moriori were deeply committed pacifists, the men wearing symbolic tufts of albatross down.
Te W'iti and Tohu, lads when tribesmen returned, would have heard their tales of conquest. Later they adopted albatross feather symbols and a facade of pacifism. Co-incidence?
Occupants of Parihaka, illegally built on government land, disrupted road-building and surveying, amassed firearms and cash, sheltered Hiroki, wanted for murder and treated government officials with contempt. As a son-in-law of Tohu said later, Te Whiti and Tohu “were master word-painters who succeeded well in deceiving their listeners”.
When Government forces occupied Parihaka, Bryce’s presentation of overwhelming force made resistance futile so he succeeded with no loss of life. He, not the alleged pacifists, deserves the credit for that.
PRESENT activities at Parihaka may be pacifist but they rest on a flawed base.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson