Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 18, 2016 5:29:10 GMT 12
Waikato Times 18/3/16
WISHFUL THINKING
Is the O’Connor article published on March 4 on the armed conflict around the Waikato in 1863-64 intended to mislead or is it based on ignorance and wishful thinking?
If it is intended to get redress, that has already occurred in the Waikato Maniopoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, and again in 1995 in the WaikatoTainui $170-million settlement, and again in a series of top-ups to that settlement, and in further smaller settlements, not to mention the Waikato River "raupatu" settlement.
Notice how O'Connor talks up the allegation that authorities "knew the invasion was illegal" offering an un-detailed assertion by a missionary as the only evidence.
Notice how he talks down the report of Waikato malcontents planning to drive (pakeha) out of Auckland as "idle bravado after a rum drinking session".
O'Connor overlooks historian James Cowan's two-volume work The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period in favour of the "revised" approach by James Belich that pitches Maori as victims battling the white coloniser.
O'Connor is somewhat naive to claim that because most Waikato chiefs had not signed the Treaty they were not British subjects and were entitled to carry on as they wished.
Sovereignty is gained by cession, conquest, and occupation. The conflict in the North, in Taranaki, Waikato, and on the East Coast, formed the conquest of New Zealand, a fact that writers like O'Connor have difficulty accepting.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Dominion Post 18/3/16 Also Waikato Time 18/3/16
A RIGHT TO RESPOND
New Zealand citizens are faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.
If Government members and their ministries upheld their `duty of care' to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months prior to the opening of submissions to any select committee. The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of 'what the Act reads at the moment' and the 'proposed change'.
Only then will you have an informed public who is given their democratic right to respond. The proposed changes will write into law further tribal control over land, water and local government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.
M A
Tauranga
Taranaki Daily News 18/3/16
BENEFITS IGNORED
Your reporting and quotes from the Mayor on colonisation is very biased. The harm done to local Maori is emphasised with respect to the impact of settlers. It does not give a balanced view that if settlers and new law systems were not introduced Maori, might is right, tribal warfare, would have continued and Taranaki Maori would have continued to be slaughtered by Waikato tribes and inter iwi conflicts within Taranaki.
I am frustrated that mainstream media continue to push the Maori hard done by line rather than give a balanced view of the benefits Maori have received.
They would not be in their original Taranaki local areas if it was not for the European Settlement and British Law Enforcement, they would either be dead, or banished South by Waikato invaders, incidentally, giving grief to those in the South where they had to retreat to.
I am waiting for at least one group of Maori to give thanks for saving them from what otherwise would have been self-imposed, barbaric extinction.
D H
New Plymouth
WISHFUL THINKING
Is the O’Connor article published on March 4 on the armed conflict around the Waikato in 1863-64 intended to mislead or is it based on ignorance and wishful thinking?
If it is intended to get redress, that has already occurred in the Waikato Maniopoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, and again in 1995 in the WaikatoTainui $170-million settlement, and again in a series of top-ups to that settlement, and in further smaller settlements, not to mention the Waikato River "raupatu" settlement.
Notice how O'Connor talks up the allegation that authorities "knew the invasion was illegal" offering an un-detailed assertion by a missionary as the only evidence.
Notice how he talks down the report of Waikato malcontents planning to drive (pakeha) out of Auckland as "idle bravado after a rum drinking session".
O'Connor overlooks historian James Cowan's two-volume work The New Zealand Wars: A History of the Maori Campaigns and the Pioneering Period in favour of the "revised" approach by James Belich that pitches Maori as victims battling the white coloniser.
O'Connor is somewhat naive to claim that because most Waikato chiefs had not signed the Treaty they were not British subjects and were entitled to carry on as they wished.
Sovereignty is gained by cession, conquest, and occupation. The conflict in the North, in Taranaki, Waikato, and on the East Coast, formed the conquest of New Zealand, a fact that writers like O'Connor have difficulty accepting.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
Dominion Post 18/3/16 Also Waikato Time 18/3/16
A RIGHT TO RESPOND
New Zealand citizens are faced with changes to the RMA and the control of fresh water without the Government physically and publicly informing the general public about the proposed changes.
If Government members and their ministries upheld their `duty of care' to the collective citizens of New Zealand, all changes to acts should reasonably be inserted into the main regional papers every two weeks for three months prior to the opening of submissions to any select committee. The information should include the heading, the number and the subset of 'what the Act reads at the moment' and the 'proposed change'.
Only then will you have an informed public who is given their democratic right to respond. The proposed changes will write into law further tribal control over land, water and local government infrastructure without any elected responsibility.
M A
Tauranga
Taranaki Daily News 18/3/16
BENEFITS IGNORED
Your reporting and quotes from the Mayor on colonisation is very biased. The harm done to local Maori is emphasised with respect to the impact of settlers. It does not give a balanced view that if settlers and new law systems were not introduced Maori, might is right, tribal warfare, would have continued and Taranaki Maori would have continued to be slaughtered by Waikato tribes and inter iwi conflicts within Taranaki.
I am frustrated that mainstream media continue to push the Maori hard done by line rather than give a balanced view of the benefits Maori have received.
They would not be in their original Taranaki local areas if it was not for the European Settlement and British Law Enforcement, they would either be dead, or banished South by Waikato invaders, incidentally, giving grief to those in the South where they had to retreat to.
I am waiting for at least one group of Maori to give thanks for saving them from what otherwise would have been self-imposed, barbaric extinction.
D H
New Plymouth