Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 5, 2016 8:53:29 GMT 12
Northland Age 5/4/16
THEORIES AND FACTS
Wally Hicks (letters, March 31) makes the fundamental blunder of confusing scientific theories with the facts of history. Scientific theories are always subject to revision and improvement as our understanding increases. They would not be scientific theories otherwise.
By contrast, the recorded facts of history should stand forever for all to see. The truth is not relative. Such records show that beyond any shadow of honest doubt, Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen in 1840. (Read One Treaty — One Nation, ISBN 9781872970443, chapter 2, for a detailed account — none of Hicks' "cherry-picking" there!)
By contrast, there is a brigade of racists today, hell-bent on rewriting our history to the contrary, and I nominate Network Waitangi as a prize example. Their alleged "history" is based on incompetent research by such people as Claudia Orange (read Twisting the Treaty, ISBN 978187297=2, pages 295-301 for a few details, not the current
Listener) and the ill-informed acceptance by Parliament of a bogus so-called 'Treaty in English' to stand co-equal with the real Treaty of Waitangi, written in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori.
Much can be learned by dipping into the Iatter, even by people with a limited knowledge of that language. Few even try. Modern science establishes too that Hicks' "racial difference is a self-evident reality" has no sound basis at all. Given that most people who identify as Maori today have probably more European blood than any other (though I am not aware of any Department of Statistics efforts to find out), any apparent differences are becoming more blurred by the day. Of course they are at liberty to make such an identification, but it should not be an excuse for favoured treatment such as is braided out in many ways today — Whanau Ora and all that lot, for example.
Hicks goes onto assert that I am a member of a "brigade". I cannot speak for any other alleged member of this non existent brigade, but my position is simply that we should seek to restore the fairness for which New Zealanders were once renowned, that the corrupt and racist Waitangi Tribunal be abolished, the bogus name Aotearoa be expunged, that the false 'partnership' myth be disposed of, and nothing should remain in law to give preference of any sort on the basis of race. If that makes me a member of New Zealand's KKK, "identified" by Minister Finlayson, then so be it. To me an insult from that man is a compliment.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
CULTURAL PRETENSIONS
Wally Hicks (letters March 31) provides a long, incoherent rant on Treaty issues, to which I feel obliged to respond, since he mentions me by name. The elephant in the room is that even if the Treaty of Waitangi provides for race-separatist special privilege (it doesn't), the 'Maori' of today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as Maori, elevating one set of ancestors and trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is
to honour all ancestors equally.
For many decades now there has been no discrete or separate Maori ethnic group. All so-called Maori alive today have European ancestry. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to find a 'Maori' who doesn't possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised. To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of 'Maori' for electoral purposes was "a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof." After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori roll, the then Labour government changed this to read "or any descendent of such a person." Undercurrent electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori roll or the general roll. We thus have a legal definition of Maori that defies definition in the courts, since it is entirely based on an individual's periodic decision to identify as Maori.
Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as 'Maori.' She states: "New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as Maori if they 'look Maori,' that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choice."
Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person's appearance, many New Zealanders who are considerably less than half-Maori will be identified by others as Maori whether they like it or not. This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist Maori identity, and seeking utu from the majority culture these people feel shut out of. The psychological roots of treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child looking for someone to punish. The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else's adjustment issues. Nor should public policy support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori be regarded as Maori. And nor should it dignify their cultural pretensions, particularly with other people's money.
Anyone who is less than half-Maori claiming to be Maori is best described as an indigenous pretender. The standard response when this is held up is, "Maori will decide who is Maori." In a free society, individuals are at liberty to form groups and combinations for any lawful purpose, and indeed, many choose to do so. There are rugby clubs, bowling clubs, bridge clubs, film clubs, swingers' clubs, various religious congregations and any number of other organisations catering to the sporting, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual needs of members. Individuals of mixed European-Maori descent indeed have every right to identity with Maori culture and affiliate to a Maori kin group. But since this is a personal choice, [part-] Maori groups rightly have the same status as any other community group with a voluntary membership, such as a rugby club or a bowling club. And the same right to demand large sums of money and political patronage from their fellow New Zealanders as the members of a rugby club or bowling club. None.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Auckland
Bay of Plenty Times 5/4/16
FLYING UPWARDS
Laurie Loper (Letters, April 4) raises the uneasy issue of socalled “white flight” and suggests that parents wishing to send their children to out-ofzone schools are chasing a myth.
Is “white flight” truly a reflection of ignorant parents or is it a reflection of culture and aspiration? If culture is important to educational outcomes, and kohanga reo, kura kaupapa and Maori immersion schools suggest it is, then it is entirely understandable that “white” parents are looking for schools that better reflect their culture and values.
The New Zealand School Report confirms higher decile s c hools c onsist entl y outperform lower decile schools.
The data s how t he proportion of pupils well below standards in reading, writing and maths generally increases the lower down the decile scale a school is.
Conversely, the proportion of pupils above the standards trends upwards as the decile increases.
To suggest t hat decil e rankings are not indicative of a school’s performance is to simply put one’s head in the sand.
When confronted with this, is it surprising aspirational parents want to send their child to a school with a culture they better identify with, less social problems, and better outcomes?
R P
Welcome Bay
THEORIES AND FACTS
Wally Hicks (letters, March 31) makes the fundamental blunder of confusing scientific theories with the facts of history. Scientific theories are always subject to revision and improvement as our understanding increases. They would not be scientific theories otherwise.
By contrast, the recorded facts of history should stand forever for all to see. The truth is not relative. Such records show that beyond any shadow of honest doubt, Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen in 1840. (Read One Treaty — One Nation, ISBN 9781872970443, chapter 2, for a detailed account — none of Hicks' "cherry-picking" there!)
By contrast, there is a brigade of racists today, hell-bent on rewriting our history to the contrary, and I nominate Network Waitangi as a prize example. Their alleged "history" is based on incompetent research by such people as Claudia Orange (read Twisting the Treaty, ISBN 978187297=2, pages 295-301 for a few details, not the current
Listener) and the ill-informed acceptance by Parliament of a bogus so-called 'Treaty in English' to stand co-equal with the real Treaty of Waitangi, written in the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori.
Much can be learned by dipping into the Iatter, even by people with a limited knowledge of that language. Few even try. Modern science establishes too that Hicks' "racial difference is a self-evident reality" has no sound basis at all. Given that most people who identify as Maori today have probably more European blood than any other (though I am not aware of any Department of Statistics efforts to find out), any apparent differences are becoming more blurred by the day. Of course they are at liberty to make such an identification, but it should not be an excuse for favoured treatment such as is braided out in many ways today — Whanau Ora and all that lot, for example.
Hicks goes onto assert that I am a member of a "brigade". I cannot speak for any other alleged member of this non existent brigade, but my position is simply that we should seek to restore the fairness for which New Zealanders were once renowned, that the corrupt and racist Waitangi Tribunal be abolished, the bogus name Aotearoa be expunged, that the false 'partnership' myth be disposed of, and nothing should remain in law to give preference of any sort on the basis of race. If that makes me a member of New Zealand's KKK, "identified" by Minister Finlayson, then so be it. To me an insult from that man is a compliment.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
CULTURAL PRETENSIONS
Wally Hicks (letters March 31) provides a long, incoherent rant on Treaty issues, to which I feel obliged to respond, since he mentions me by name. The elephant in the room is that even if the Treaty of Waitangi provides for race-separatist special privilege (it doesn't), the 'Maori' of today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as Maori, elevating one set of ancestors and trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is
to honour all ancestors equally.
For many decades now there has been no discrete or separate Maori ethnic group. All so-called Maori alive today have European ancestry. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to find a 'Maori' who doesn't possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised. To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of 'Maori' for electoral purposes was "a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof." After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori roll, the then Labour government changed this to read "or any descendent of such a person." Undercurrent electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori roll or the general roll. We thus have a legal definition of Maori that defies definition in the courts, since it is entirely based on an individual's periodic decision to identify as Maori.
Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as 'Maori.' She states: "New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as Maori if they 'look Maori,' that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choice."
Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person's appearance, many New Zealanders who are considerably less than half-Maori will be identified by others as Maori whether they like it or not. This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist Maori identity, and seeking utu from the majority culture these people feel shut out of. The psychological roots of treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child looking for someone to punish. The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else's adjustment issues. Nor should public policy support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori be regarded as Maori. And nor should it dignify their cultural pretensions, particularly with other people's money.
Anyone who is less than half-Maori claiming to be Maori is best described as an indigenous pretender. The standard response when this is held up is, "Maori will decide who is Maori." In a free society, individuals are at liberty to form groups and combinations for any lawful purpose, and indeed, many choose to do so. There are rugby clubs, bowling clubs, bridge clubs, film clubs, swingers' clubs, various religious congregations and any number of other organisations catering to the sporting, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual needs of members. Individuals of mixed European-Maori descent indeed have every right to identity with Maori culture and affiliate to a Maori kin group. But since this is a personal choice, [part-] Maori groups rightly have the same status as any other community group with a voluntary membership, such as a rugby club or a bowling club. And the same right to demand large sums of money and political patronage from their fellow New Zealanders as the members of a rugby club or bowling club. None.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Auckland
Bay of Plenty Times 5/4/16
FLYING UPWARDS
Laurie Loper (Letters, April 4) raises the uneasy issue of socalled “white flight” and suggests that parents wishing to send their children to out-ofzone schools are chasing a myth.
Is “white flight” truly a reflection of ignorant parents or is it a reflection of culture and aspiration? If culture is important to educational outcomes, and kohanga reo, kura kaupapa and Maori immersion schools suggest it is, then it is entirely understandable that “white” parents are looking for schools that better reflect their culture and values.
The New Zealand School Report confirms higher decile s c hools c onsist entl y outperform lower decile schools.
The data s how t he proportion of pupils well below standards in reading, writing and maths generally increases the lower down the decile scale a school is.
Conversely, the proportion of pupils above the standards trends upwards as the decile increases.
To suggest t hat decil e rankings are not indicative of a school’s performance is to simply put one’s head in the sand.
When confronted with this, is it surprising aspirational parents want to send their child to a school with a culture they better identify with, less social problems, and better outcomes?
R P
Welcome Bay