Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jan 17, 2017 5:58:48 GMT 12
Northland Age 17/1/17
WHO'S CRINGING?
I also cringe at the NZ Herald article where Lizzie Marvelly writes of colonists stealing Maori land. In doing so she reviles her own forebears.
Her name and appearance suggest she is no more than a quarter Maori. No Maori can have more than half blood. So for every Hone (her words) robbed of his land, the thieving, colonist perpetrator was either John or Sean, lain or some other of her three-quarter, non-Maori ancestors. Also true of their representation in unjust government.
What I find more cringe-making is her reluctance to accept and acknowledge these relationships. Here is the attitude of victimisation, promoted by the tribalist Treaty revisionists and accepted by a compliant media.
After the Treaty, if you lost your land you at least kept your head.
Her analogies are capricious at least, with phrases like "the lawless foreign city dwellers", and gross calumnies: government retaliation resulting in wives raped, children killed and houses burned; rebel tribes' attacks on settlers in Taranaki.
For wholesale, merciless slaughter actions by Hongi Hika, Te Rauparaha, Hone Heke, Te Kooti, Te Waharoa, the Tainui in Taranaki. Lizzie, which of your ancestors took part in these actions? The 25 per cent or the 75 per cent?
Give a single, historically verifiable account where colonists, imperial forces or local militia were responsible for "the rape of women and slaughter of children". That was regular practice after a tribal battle, but not after the Treaty was signed.
In 1831, Waikato chief, Te Wherowhero, later the first Maori King, Potatau, personally clubbed 150 unarmed prisoners to death. Tribal custom.
Finally, Ms Marvelly, I find your article fanciful, inaccurate, offensive and racially divisive. I suggest that you present verifiable facts rather than emotive diatribe and cease to blame the many Maori problems on colonisation. A colonisation, incidentally, that enables you to have a half-page article and large personal photo published.
BRYAN JOHNSON
Omokoroa
.
NZ Herald 17/1/17
TREATY HISTORY
The Lizzie Marvelly commentary in the Weekend Herald, “And then tell me why we are cringing”, aptly illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I find cringeworthy is the way Marvelly has taken an over-the-top, distorted interpretation of our history and dressed it up as a thinly disguised “story”, thereby sidestepping the need to base her assertions on an accurate account of the truth.
SUSAN SHORT,
Meadowbank.
.
NZ Herald 17/1/17 (Short & Sweet section)
On history Liz Marvelly fails badly if the purpose of her "cringing" article was to provide a more balanced perspective of our nation's character. It was not a clever piece at all. Her analogies were extremely slanted and such information does her little credit.
M HARRIS
RD Wellsford
.
Waikato Times 17/1/17
WAITANGI INVITE
I applaud the decision by the Prime Minister not to attend the celebrations at Waitangi this upcoming Waitangi weekend.
I believe the whole country is embarrassed by the circus this event has become at Waitangi. I remember a succession of disgraceful behaviours towards authority figures over the years, ranging from a wet T-shirt being hurled at Queen Elizabeth, mud being thrown into the face of the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister Helen Clark being reduced to humiliation and tears, and a Government MP having a sex toy thrown in his face. I imagine tourists' astonishment at such antics as they appear in our media.
The other day I saw on TV news some authority figure at Waitangi apologising about the refusal to allow the current Prime Minister to speak. The apology was shallow - he followed it by launching into a tirade against the Prime Minister.
I think it is time for all politicians of whatever stripe to unite in refusing to dignify Waitangi with their presence until such time as an absolute assurance is received that this behaviour is at an end.
STEPHEN HIRST
Hamilton
.
Bay of Plenty Times 17/1/17
OUR DIVISIVE NATIONAL DAY
In 1973 Norman Kirk and Matiu Rata felt that the name New Zealand Day would emphasise that the day was New Zealand’s national day and for all New Zealanders, not just Maori. It would create a greater sense pride unity among all New Zealanders. After Maori protests, the National Government repealed that statute and reinstated the Waitangi Day Act in 1976.
Since then our national representatives have been subjected to a variety of insults ranging from T-shirt throwing (at the Queen, no less); pelting Ministers of the Crown with a variety of insulting materials; Prime Ministers being kept waiting up to an hour, being refused speaking rights on the marae and Helen Clark being reduced to tears. In insulting our leaders, the powhiri restrictions and other Maori protest gestures insult those whom our leaders represent — all New of and Zealanders.
Full marks to Bill English (left) for refusing to accept limitations on his participation at our so-called national celebrations. He also avoids any ancillary protest actions, the politics of which are not appropriate on our national day.
It is time to take the national celebration off the marae and back to the Treaty Grounds, which is the logical place to hold a ceremony — or even Wellington. We need to take back our history and our dignity and truly celebrate New Zealand day. (Abridged)
RE STEPHENS
Mount Maunganui
.
Southland Times 17/1/17
THE RIGHT PROTOCOLS
If the Prime Minister was to invite the Iwi leadership group to parliament for a hui (which has been done in the past), and said to Nga Puhi elders, "you can not speak in parliament but we will let you speak later out on the front lawn in a tent", would Nga Puhi take offence and not attend ?
NOBBY CLARK
Otatara
WHO'S CRINGING?
I also cringe at the NZ Herald article where Lizzie Marvelly writes of colonists stealing Maori land. In doing so she reviles her own forebears.
Her name and appearance suggest she is no more than a quarter Maori. No Maori can have more than half blood. So for every Hone (her words) robbed of his land, the thieving, colonist perpetrator was either John or Sean, lain or some other of her three-quarter, non-Maori ancestors. Also true of their representation in unjust government.
What I find more cringe-making is her reluctance to accept and acknowledge these relationships. Here is the attitude of victimisation, promoted by the tribalist Treaty revisionists and accepted by a compliant media.
After the Treaty, if you lost your land you at least kept your head.
Her analogies are capricious at least, with phrases like "the lawless foreign city dwellers", and gross calumnies: government retaliation resulting in wives raped, children killed and houses burned; rebel tribes' attacks on settlers in Taranaki.
For wholesale, merciless slaughter actions by Hongi Hika, Te Rauparaha, Hone Heke, Te Kooti, Te Waharoa, the Tainui in Taranaki. Lizzie, which of your ancestors took part in these actions? The 25 per cent or the 75 per cent?
Give a single, historically verifiable account where colonists, imperial forces or local militia were responsible for "the rape of women and slaughter of children". That was regular practice after a tribal battle, but not after the Treaty was signed.
In 1831, Waikato chief, Te Wherowhero, later the first Maori King, Potatau, personally clubbed 150 unarmed prisoners to death. Tribal custom.
Finally, Ms Marvelly, I find your article fanciful, inaccurate, offensive and racially divisive. I suggest that you present verifiable facts rather than emotive diatribe and cease to blame the many Maori problems on colonisation. A colonisation, incidentally, that enables you to have a half-page article and large personal photo published.
BRYAN JOHNSON
Omokoroa
.
NZ Herald 17/1/17
TREATY HISTORY
The Lizzie Marvelly commentary in the Weekend Herald, “And then tell me why we are cringing”, aptly illustrates the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I find cringeworthy is the way Marvelly has taken an over-the-top, distorted interpretation of our history and dressed it up as a thinly disguised “story”, thereby sidestepping the need to base her assertions on an accurate account of the truth.
SUSAN SHORT,
Meadowbank.
.
NZ Herald 17/1/17 (Short & Sweet section)
On history Liz Marvelly fails badly if the purpose of her "cringing" article was to provide a more balanced perspective of our nation's character. It was not a clever piece at all. Her analogies were extremely slanted and such information does her little credit.
M HARRIS
RD Wellsford
.
Waikato Times 17/1/17
WAITANGI INVITE
I applaud the decision by the Prime Minister not to attend the celebrations at Waitangi this upcoming Waitangi weekend.
I believe the whole country is embarrassed by the circus this event has become at Waitangi. I remember a succession of disgraceful behaviours towards authority figures over the years, ranging from a wet T-shirt being hurled at Queen Elizabeth, mud being thrown into the face of the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister Helen Clark being reduced to humiliation and tears, and a Government MP having a sex toy thrown in his face. I imagine tourists' astonishment at such antics as they appear in our media.
The other day I saw on TV news some authority figure at Waitangi apologising about the refusal to allow the current Prime Minister to speak. The apology was shallow - he followed it by launching into a tirade against the Prime Minister.
I think it is time for all politicians of whatever stripe to unite in refusing to dignify Waitangi with their presence until such time as an absolute assurance is received that this behaviour is at an end.
STEPHEN HIRST
Hamilton
.
Bay of Plenty Times 17/1/17
OUR DIVISIVE NATIONAL DAY
In 1973 Norman Kirk and Matiu Rata felt that the name New Zealand Day would emphasise that the day was New Zealand’s national day and for all New Zealanders, not just Maori. It would create a greater sense pride unity among all New Zealanders. After Maori protests, the National Government repealed that statute and reinstated the Waitangi Day Act in 1976.
Since then our national representatives have been subjected to a variety of insults ranging from T-shirt throwing (at the Queen, no less); pelting Ministers of the Crown with a variety of insulting materials; Prime Ministers being kept waiting up to an hour, being refused speaking rights on the marae and Helen Clark being reduced to tears. In insulting our leaders, the powhiri restrictions and other Maori protest gestures insult those whom our leaders represent — all New of and Zealanders.
Full marks to Bill English (left) for refusing to accept limitations on his participation at our so-called national celebrations. He also avoids any ancillary protest actions, the politics of which are not appropriate on our national day.
It is time to take the national celebration off the marae and back to the Treaty Grounds, which is the logical place to hold a ceremony — or even Wellington. We need to take back our history and our dignity and truly celebrate New Zealand day. (Abridged)
RE STEPHENS
Mount Maunganui
.
Southland Times 17/1/17
THE RIGHT PROTOCOLS
If the Prime Minister was to invite the Iwi leadership group to parliament for a hui (which has been done in the past), and said to Nga Puhi elders, "you can not speak in parliament but we will let you speak later out on the front lawn in a tent", would Nga Puhi take offence and not attend ?
NOBBY CLARK
Otatara