Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jan 11, 2017 8:11:57 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 11/1/17
WAITANGI NO-SHOW AN AFFRONT
The celebration of the Treaty of Waitangi is a sacred event revered by those who value our history. It is an occasion where, as with Anzac Day, the customary presence of the Governor General as the representative of the Queen is essential. Our leaders should also be present to honour the occasion.
What should never have happened, was for any MPs, or the media, to have been permitted to cheapen the occasion by indulging their politics. For this Prime Minister to boycott what should be a totally apolitical event, because rightly or wrongly, he is not allowed to speak, could be seen as another cheap political shot, typical of what we have come to expect.
JAMES YOUNG,
Takapuna.
FAMILY ROW
The term “cringe” very aptly describes the reaction of many New Zealanders to the headlining histrionic protesters who have tended to dominate ceremonies at the Waitangi marae in recent years.
This should be the day when we all commemorate a unique event in world history.
It was after all, the very first time a potential “conquering power” had attempted to make a binding agreement with the indigenous inhabitants in the hope of ensuring peaceful co-operation and cohabitation.
Maybe we should celebrate that it has worked well enough that these disagreements over how to celebrate our national day have the feeling of an in-family fight, not a civil war?
JEANETTE GRANT,
Mt Eden.
BITER BIT
Now that the Northern Chiefs, the first signatories of the Treaty, have insulted the Government and therefore the People of New Zealand by preventing the Prime Minister speaking on the marae it is time to review the Treaty, for the document to be authenticated and the obligations and commitments verified.
I am sure that in pre-colonial times tikanga would not have prevented dignitaries of other iwi, apart from women, speaking on the marae. But perhaps it is a case of “biter bit” for National, as many of their consultations with Maori on matters concerning all New Zealanders have been carried out in private with notifications only made when decisions are virtually confirmed and the public having no say.
BRYAN JOHNSON,
Omokoroa.
ENGLISH RIGHT
At last we have a leader willing to tell the Waitangi Maori what to do with their Waitangi Day festivities.
Mr English is quite right to insist that the office of Prime Minister is deserving of respect and since this has not been forthcoming, he is correct to refuse to attend the ceremonies.
I hope he will maintain that stance and make no concessions, no matter what the Maori say. I have never rated him very highly. It seems I did him less than justice.
GERALDINE TAYLOR,
Remuera.
QUEEN ENDURED IT
Prime Minister Bill English has made a sensible decision not to attend the Waitangi Day event on the marae.
We went there in 1991, it was very hot, and with other invited guests we stood in blazing sun for hours listening to speeches in Maori.
I asked a senior diplomat how The Queen had coped in 1990, when it was equally hot and she was draped in a feather cloak and had to sit for hours listening to speeches. The diplomat’s reply was, “Waitangi Day 1990 is deeply etched in The Queen’s memory”.
RACHEL LEWIS,
Takapuna.
The New Zealand Herald 11/1/17 (Short & Sweet section)
ON WAITANGI DAY
* On Waitangi Day Mr English has exhibited the strength and good sense we hope will be his enduring form.
GRAHAM STEENSON,
Whakatane.
* It is opportune to advise that as Bill will not be going to Waitangi, neither will I.
REG DEMPSTER,
Albany.
* Good on English for standing up to the Waitangi bullying. Why should any person go up there to be abused?
A. N CHRISTIE,
Rotorua.
* Good on Bill English for refusing to be disrespected by a bunch of professional Maori stirrers at Waitangi.
FIONA ALLEN,
Papatoetoe.
* The Leader of our country insulted. Is this the racist flag being flown yet again by the elders of Maoridom?
ROBERTA GRAY,
Epsom.
Wanganui Chronicle 11/1/17
ENGLISH ONLY
I must reply to just one part of the letter by Potonga Neilson in which he states that his father and cousins were told they were not allowed to speak Maori at school. It was the Maori parents themselves who wished their children to learn to speak the English language to set them up for the future.
After the Native Schools system had been established in the 1870s, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools.
Takamoana, a newly elected Maori MP, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English. A number of petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require the teachers of a Native School to forbid the Maori language to be spoken at the school.
Further from this petition: “There should also be a general playground for the European and Maori children together. There should not be a word of Maori allowed to be spoken in the school, and the master, his wife and children should be persons altogether ignorant of the Maori language.”
This clarifies why the father and cousins of Potonga were not allowed to speak Maori in school — their teacher was not “porangi”, he was simply obeying the law which was at the request of the Maori people.
ROBIN BISHOP
Tauranga
MAORI NUMBERS
Historian James Rutherford (University of Auckland library) has written that between 1801 and 1840 about 42,000 Maori lost their lives in the musket wars (Maori against Maori), and in that same period only 13,000 died from diseases and other causes.
Therefore, disease was hardly the “the biggest impact on Maori numbers” as H Norton claims (Letters, January 10).
Dr John Robinson’s research establishes that if Maori had not practised female infanticide, their numbers would have been in a far better state to withstand the effects of disease and tribal warfare.
Maori could not stay isolated in an exploring world, therefore exposure to disease that they had little or no resistance to was inevitable.
Norton and his fellow anti-colonisation travellers seem to forget that colonisation also brought medicines, medical knowledge, surgery, blankets, clothing, housing and through agriculture a more reliable source of nutrition.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
WILD CLAIMS
Most of your readers will have long since dismissed the wild claims of H Norton and P Neilson as rubbish. Here are some of the latest ( January 10):
Example 1: Neilson: In early February 1840, the vast majority of the “natives” of Taranaki were living on, and gaining sustenance from, their ancestral lands.
The facts: South Taranaki was virtually deserted. A couple of families were living in the bush near Opunake and a few more near the islands off New Plymouth to which they were ready to flee at the least sign of Waikato marauders.
Example 2: Norton: “The actual confiscations covered the whole [of Taranaki] (even unto the mountain top).”
The facts: Most land was bought from chiefs who were willing sellers, some three times over. Confiscations, to pay in small part for the cost of quelling rebellions, were a small part of the total.
Example 3: Norton: “The biggest impact on Maori numbers was f r om European introduced diseases.”
The facts: The biggest impact was the wholesale slaughter in the inter-Maori musket wars.
Read John Robinson. He may be relied on.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The Daily Post Rotorua 11/1/17
ENGLISH NOT THE SPOILT CHILD
Under the headline “English’s choice questioned” ( Rotorua Daily Post, January 10) a Ngapuhi kaumatua says Prime Minister English should “not be a spoilt child”, referring to Mr English’s decision to celebrate Waitangi Day elsewhere.
Who is the spoilt child here? Certainly not Mr English.
I ask you — if there is to be a large celebration, and the Prime Minister is not permitted to speak, and with missiles flying right and left would you attend? Not likely.
A N CHRISTIE
Rotorua
WAITANGI NO-SHOW AN AFFRONT
The celebration of the Treaty of Waitangi is a sacred event revered by those who value our history. It is an occasion where, as with Anzac Day, the customary presence of the Governor General as the representative of the Queen is essential. Our leaders should also be present to honour the occasion.
What should never have happened, was for any MPs, or the media, to have been permitted to cheapen the occasion by indulging their politics. For this Prime Minister to boycott what should be a totally apolitical event, because rightly or wrongly, he is not allowed to speak, could be seen as another cheap political shot, typical of what we have come to expect.
JAMES YOUNG,
Takapuna.
FAMILY ROW
The term “cringe” very aptly describes the reaction of many New Zealanders to the headlining histrionic protesters who have tended to dominate ceremonies at the Waitangi marae in recent years.
This should be the day when we all commemorate a unique event in world history.
It was after all, the very first time a potential “conquering power” had attempted to make a binding agreement with the indigenous inhabitants in the hope of ensuring peaceful co-operation and cohabitation.
Maybe we should celebrate that it has worked well enough that these disagreements over how to celebrate our national day have the feeling of an in-family fight, not a civil war?
JEANETTE GRANT,
Mt Eden.
BITER BIT
Now that the Northern Chiefs, the first signatories of the Treaty, have insulted the Government and therefore the People of New Zealand by preventing the Prime Minister speaking on the marae it is time to review the Treaty, for the document to be authenticated and the obligations and commitments verified.
I am sure that in pre-colonial times tikanga would not have prevented dignitaries of other iwi, apart from women, speaking on the marae. But perhaps it is a case of “biter bit” for National, as many of their consultations with Maori on matters concerning all New Zealanders have been carried out in private with notifications only made when decisions are virtually confirmed and the public having no say.
BRYAN JOHNSON,
Omokoroa.
ENGLISH RIGHT
At last we have a leader willing to tell the Waitangi Maori what to do with their Waitangi Day festivities.
Mr English is quite right to insist that the office of Prime Minister is deserving of respect and since this has not been forthcoming, he is correct to refuse to attend the ceremonies.
I hope he will maintain that stance and make no concessions, no matter what the Maori say. I have never rated him very highly. It seems I did him less than justice.
GERALDINE TAYLOR,
Remuera.
QUEEN ENDURED IT
Prime Minister Bill English has made a sensible decision not to attend the Waitangi Day event on the marae.
We went there in 1991, it was very hot, and with other invited guests we stood in blazing sun for hours listening to speeches in Maori.
I asked a senior diplomat how The Queen had coped in 1990, when it was equally hot and she was draped in a feather cloak and had to sit for hours listening to speeches. The diplomat’s reply was, “Waitangi Day 1990 is deeply etched in The Queen’s memory”.
RACHEL LEWIS,
Takapuna.
The New Zealand Herald 11/1/17 (Short & Sweet section)
ON WAITANGI DAY
* On Waitangi Day Mr English has exhibited the strength and good sense we hope will be his enduring form.
GRAHAM STEENSON,
Whakatane.
* It is opportune to advise that as Bill will not be going to Waitangi, neither will I.
REG DEMPSTER,
Albany.
* Good on English for standing up to the Waitangi bullying. Why should any person go up there to be abused?
A. N CHRISTIE,
Rotorua.
* Good on Bill English for refusing to be disrespected by a bunch of professional Maori stirrers at Waitangi.
FIONA ALLEN,
Papatoetoe.
* The Leader of our country insulted. Is this the racist flag being flown yet again by the elders of Maoridom?
ROBERTA GRAY,
Epsom.
Wanganui Chronicle 11/1/17
ENGLISH ONLY
I must reply to just one part of the letter by Potonga Neilson in which he states that his father and cousins were told they were not allowed to speak Maori at school. It was the Maori parents themselves who wished their children to learn to speak the English language to set them up for the future.
After the Native Schools system had been established in the 1870s, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools.
Takamoana, a newly elected Maori MP, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English. A number of petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require the teachers of a Native School to forbid the Maori language to be spoken at the school.
Further from this petition: “There should also be a general playground for the European and Maori children together. There should not be a word of Maori allowed to be spoken in the school, and the master, his wife and children should be persons altogether ignorant of the Maori language.”
This clarifies why the father and cousins of Potonga were not allowed to speak Maori in school — their teacher was not “porangi”, he was simply obeying the law which was at the request of the Maori people.
ROBIN BISHOP
Tauranga
MAORI NUMBERS
Historian James Rutherford (University of Auckland library) has written that between 1801 and 1840 about 42,000 Maori lost their lives in the musket wars (Maori against Maori), and in that same period only 13,000 died from diseases and other causes.
Therefore, disease was hardly the “the biggest impact on Maori numbers” as H Norton claims (Letters, January 10).
Dr John Robinson’s research establishes that if Maori had not practised female infanticide, their numbers would have been in a far better state to withstand the effects of disease and tribal warfare.
Maori could not stay isolated in an exploring world, therefore exposure to disease that they had little or no resistance to was inevitable.
Norton and his fellow anti-colonisation travellers seem to forget that colonisation also brought medicines, medical knowledge, surgery, blankets, clothing, housing and through agriculture a more reliable source of nutrition.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Whangarei
WILD CLAIMS
Most of your readers will have long since dismissed the wild claims of H Norton and P Neilson as rubbish. Here are some of the latest ( January 10):
Example 1: Neilson: In early February 1840, the vast majority of the “natives” of Taranaki were living on, and gaining sustenance from, their ancestral lands.
The facts: South Taranaki was virtually deserted. A couple of families were living in the bush near Opunake and a few more near the islands off New Plymouth to which they were ready to flee at the least sign of Waikato marauders.
Example 2: Norton: “The actual confiscations covered the whole [of Taranaki] (even unto the mountain top).”
The facts: Most land was bought from chiefs who were willing sellers, some three times over. Confiscations, to pay in small part for the cost of quelling rebellions, were a small part of the total.
Example 3: Norton: “The biggest impact on Maori numbers was f r om European introduced diseases.”
The facts: The biggest impact was the wholesale slaughter in the inter-Maori musket wars.
Read John Robinson. He may be relied on.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
The Daily Post Rotorua 11/1/17
ENGLISH NOT THE SPOILT CHILD
Under the headline “English’s choice questioned” ( Rotorua Daily Post, January 10) a Ngapuhi kaumatua says Prime Minister English should “not be a spoilt child”, referring to Mr English’s decision to celebrate Waitangi Day elsewhere.
Who is the spoilt child here? Certainly not Mr English.
I ask you — if there is to be a large celebration, and the Prime Minister is not permitted to speak, and with missiles flying right and left would you attend? Not likely.
A N CHRISTIE
Rotorua