Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 1, 2016 6:45:23 GMT 12
Dominion Post 1/11/16
CIVIL WAR WAS REAL
Since a civil war is simply 'war between citizens of the same country", the 19th century fighting in New Zealand was indeed civil war.
That fighting was rebellion by various Maori groups, opposed by many other New Zealanders, both Maori and settler alike.
The campaigns of individual tribes were not "against local acts of Crown aggression", as claimed by Danny Keenan (October 29). Kingi's action at Waitara was part of a tribal feud. Of course Maori did not constitute a "single polity"; they were a tribal society.
When Hone Heke raided communities, he was opposed by his senior Ngapuhi chief; Tamati Waka Nene, and by Waikato chief Te Wherowhero. Later, Tamati Waka Nene offered armed assistance to the government when the king movement in Waikato began its rebellion against the clearly expressed commands of the first king, Potatau (Te Wherowhero).
When Arawa fought and defeated a war party from the eastern Bay of Plenty they were defending their own lands, and that action prevented reinforcements to the kingite rebels, who were defeated at around that time.
This was no "difficult position", as claimed by Keenan. They joined with other New Zealanders to bring peace to their country.
JOHN ROBINSON
Island Bay
Northland Age 1/11/16
CONSTITUTIONAL BIAS
In his advocacy for a written constitution, Sir Geoffrey Palmer mentions the huge volume of submissions and the many public hearings caused by the government's Constitutional Review Panel in 2013.
Perhaps he can justify why the selected panel, on a topic of concern to all New Zealanders, was so racially biased in favour of Maori, much of the proceedings being conducted in te reo. The chairman and eight members, or two-thirds, of the panel were Maori or Maori sympathisers. This from 15 per cent of the country's population. The government, although questioned by many on this anomaly, failed to justify or even reply to the matter. One Maori member of the panel said that he not only wanted the Treaty included in a constitution, but he wanted the Treaty to be the basis of a constitution.
While in government Sir Geoffrey succeeded in subverting the meaning and purposes of the Treaty, but would now seem intent on further revising what is a simple and clear agreement by the chiefs to accept completely the sovereignty of the Queen in exchange for full citizens' rights and ownership of their lands and properties.
B J
Omokoroa
Southland Times 1/11/16
DEMAND FOR EQUALITY
A call for equality of all New Zealanders in law, and in government - both national and local - demands that there be no separation based on ancestry. This demand for equality is the very opposite of racism. This has always been the New Zealand way.
Nichola Voice (Southland Times, October 28) is incorrect with the claim that "England colonised, forcing their language and culture on Maori." From the very first contact, communications took place in both languages, as British learned to speak Maori and Maori began to speak English.
For many years, many Maori spokesmen insisted that all teaching in schools should be in English - it was not "forced" by colonisers. Then New Zealanders of various ancestries (European, Maori and mixed) came to recognise the value of Maori culture and the need for its protection, and that policy was changed.
Thus we find Sir Apirana Ngata proclaiming in 1936 that in schools he would make "English first, second, third, fourth and all the rest of the subjects fifth". Three years later when speaking to an important conference of young Maori leaders at Auckland, he said that he had formerly opposed the teaching of Maori in Native schools because he had believed there was not sufficient time for pupils to learn both Maori and English. He now believed "nothing was worse than for one to be with Maori features but without his own language".
The story of our country should not be reduced to a crude race-based caricature.
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington
CIVIL WAR WAS REAL
Since a civil war is simply 'war between citizens of the same country", the 19th century fighting in New Zealand was indeed civil war.
That fighting was rebellion by various Maori groups, opposed by many other New Zealanders, both Maori and settler alike.
The campaigns of individual tribes were not "against local acts of Crown aggression", as claimed by Danny Keenan (October 29). Kingi's action at Waitara was part of a tribal feud. Of course Maori did not constitute a "single polity"; they were a tribal society.
When Hone Heke raided communities, he was opposed by his senior Ngapuhi chief; Tamati Waka Nene, and by Waikato chief Te Wherowhero. Later, Tamati Waka Nene offered armed assistance to the government when the king movement in Waikato began its rebellion against the clearly expressed commands of the first king, Potatau (Te Wherowhero).
When Arawa fought and defeated a war party from the eastern Bay of Plenty they were defending their own lands, and that action prevented reinforcements to the kingite rebels, who were defeated at around that time.
This was no "difficult position", as claimed by Keenan. They joined with other New Zealanders to bring peace to their country.
JOHN ROBINSON
Island Bay
Northland Age 1/11/16
CONSTITUTIONAL BIAS
In his advocacy for a written constitution, Sir Geoffrey Palmer mentions the huge volume of submissions and the many public hearings caused by the government's Constitutional Review Panel in 2013.
Perhaps he can justify why the selected panel, on a topic of concern to all New Zealanders, was so racially biased in favour of Maori, much of the proceedings being conducted in te reo. The chairman and eight members, or two-thirds, of the panel were Maori or Maori sympathisers. This from 15 per cent of the country's population. The government, although questioned by many on this anomaly, failed to justify or even reply to the matter. One Maori member of the panel said that he not only wanted the Treaty included in a constitution, but he wanted the Treaty to be the basis of a constitution.
While in government Sir Geoffrey succeeded in subverting the meaning and purposes of the Treaty, but would now seem intent on further revising what is a simple and clear agreement by the chiefs to accept completely the sovereignty of the Queen in exchange for full citizens' rights and ownership of their lands and properties.
B J
Omokoroa
Southland Times 1/11/16
DEMAND FOR EQUALITY
A call for equality of all New Zealanders in law, and in government - both national and local - demands that there be no separation based on ancestry. This demand for equality is the very opposite of racism. This has always been the New Zealand way.
Nichola Voice (Southland Times, October 28) is incorrect with the claim that "England colonised, forcing their language and culture on Maori." From the very first contact, communications took place in both languages, as British learned to speak Maori and Maori began to speak English.
For many years, many Maori spokesmen insisted that all teaching in schools should be in English - it was not "forced" by colonisers. Then New Zealanders of various ancestries (European, Maori and mixed) came to recognise the value of Maori culture and the need for its protection, and that policy was changed.
Thus we find Sir Apirana Ngata proclaiming in 1936 that in schools he would make "English first, second, third, fourth and all the rest of the subjects fifth". Three years later when speaking to an important conference of young Maori leaders at Auckland, he said that he had formerly opposed the teaching of Maori in Native schools because he had believed there was not sufficient time for pupils to learn both Maori and English. He now believed "nothing was worse than for one to be with Maori features but without his own language".
The story of our country should not be reduced to a crude race-based caricature.
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington