Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 7, 2016 10:31:11 GMT 12
The New Zealand Herald 7/4/16
STORY OF NIXON MONUMENT
It is disappointing that a journalist of the stature of Brian Rudman has swallowed some highly questionable comments and unsubstantiated claims by Jock Phillips about the battle of Rangiaowhia without some research.
Rangiowhia, near Te Awamutu, was a village supplying food to the Kingite garrisons.
Standard war practice is cut off supplies to the enemy.
General Cameron outflanked the Kingites' heavy defences at Paterangi and Rangiatea and attacked Rangiowhia on the morning of February 21,1864. The Maori took cover in the raupo huts and opened fire on the cavalrymen. Casualties of the ensuing battle are recorded as Maori:12 killed including chiefs Hoani and Ihala and two daughters of Kereopa Te Rau. European: three killed and two mortally wounded, who included Colonel Marmaduke Nixon. Thirty prisoners, some wounded, were taken.
This was a battle hard fought by both sides and certainly not "an appalling act of genocide" as claimed by Phillips. Attempts to re-write history are highly damaging to race relations.
R P
Tauranga.
WATER CONTROL
We may as well just hand over the keys.
I’ve been working through the Government’s proposals for fresh water. Clean, healthy water must be the objective wherever feasible, but I didn’t realise we needed to hand over local government control and taxpayer dollars to politically motivated “iwi, hapu and whanau” to achieve that.
How is it that Maori communal landowners don’t pay rates but the Government is proposing that other ratepayers be responsible for providing fresh water and its infrastructure to all iwi properties around the country?
National seems intent on creating a country divided into two — iwi and the rest of us — with the rest of us submissively following iwi orders and paying all costs. It’s time to stop blatant racism and extortion.
F M
Stanmore Bay.
NZ Herald 7/4/16 (Short & Sweet section)
ON WATER
The Maori Party was one of the first to raise the need for commercial operators to pay for fresh water. Once there is a price on water, tribal leaders will claim compensation for lost revenue and royalties for future revenue. Greens, Act and Labour are playing into their hands.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo.
Bay of Plenty Times 7/4/16
SHIFT FOCUS TO VICTIMS OF WARS
Instead of a commemoration of the misnamed Land Wars, the result of teachers betraying their trust by politicising their classrooms for what were in effect rebellions against the Crown, let us consider the souls of the 40,000 or more Maori who perished in the Musket Wars between 1810 and 1840.
B J
Omokoroa
CHARITY STATUS
I have received some feedback about my letter (Letters, April 6), in which I stated that some of the wealthiest businesses in the country are registered as charities and thus pay no income tax.
As this is undemocratic, I suggested that “trading operations of charities be taxed” and a comment received, suggested that this would be unfair to genuine charities such as opshops who would then also be taxed.
That was never my intent. The system that the Labour Party so intensely lobbied for to protect tribal interests, needs to change.
By removing the charitable status of the business activities of these wealthy corporations that are not used to fund a charity, would then allow those parts of the business that do fund the charity to retain their tax-free status. They would therefore be required to pay tax on some of their commercial operations.
R B
Tauranga
Northland Age 7/4/16
IN REALITY
For the record, on Wally Hicks Tyranny' (letters, March 31), I for one will run with Bruce Moon's assertions which are accurate, factual, historically correct accounts, plus have a dose of commonsense over Mr Hicks' gobbledygook claptrap, which quite frankly is basicaIly an incomprehensible rant option when one can't win the debate.
It is only the separatists, grievers and appeasers that want to return to the "good old free-for-all days" pre-1840 of tribal slaughter, tohunga, cannibalism and slavery, which some like to call a tribal culture.
Bruce Moon's criticism of things like Network Waitangi, our country's new "quaint' name, the Orange Clockwork et al are all quite valid.
Kiwis only need to face reality, accept there are no Treaty partnerships, no special obligations and no Treaty principles other than those fabricated via political and legal fictions, disband the dysfunctional Waitangi Tribunal, can the false name Aotearoa and you will be on the right track. Oh, incidentally, and here is the clincher, you can't claim to have a racial difference if you are not in fact a race, and as by all accounts, as Maori have less than 50 percent bloodlines, then everyone in New Zealand falls into the category of non-Maori, other than statutory Maori created by Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974. QED.
R P
Mt Maunganui
LAND AND SEA
Even though Anahera Herbert uses the word "racist" three times in her 10-paragraph column titled 'Continued confrontation', she makes four indisputable points:
1. The elements of fishing quota involves species, quantity, time and location, and presumably the proposed Kermadec sanctuary is one of those locations.
2. The government entered into a fisheries settlement with Maori that presumably included the Kermadec zone.
3. The government declared a conservation zone in that area without talking to quota owners.
4. The wastelands policy was tried for a while during the 1840s but dropped.
This is not the first time that Conservation Minister Nick Smith forgot to consult 'Maori' over some aspect of government policy. He did something similar in his role as Housing minister over a housing development in Auckland.
However, I would like to add four further points.
1. The quota system that Anahera appears to claim as her right has brought fished-out coastal areas, epic waste through dumped by-catches and the use of slave labour on foreign charter vessels.
2. Anahera may not be aware that the fisheries settlement was based on the ridiculous recommendation by Waitangi Tribunal chairman Eddie Dude that Maori owned the sea in the same way they owned the land.
3. Neither does she seem aware that the Treaty rights' brigade routinely ignore Treaty principal No3, which says the "principles do not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to follow its chosen policy", which in this case is the international good of a large marine sanctuary.
4. Anahera Herbert uses the words "steal" or "obtain through the pre-emption clause" when she should simply say that the chiefs, possibly her forebears, sold the land. And now, some who claim to descend from them want the land, the sea, and buckets of compensation.
MIKE BUTLER
Hastings
NEVER POLICY
Anahera Herbert-Graves' (Continued confrontation, April 5) has written of the idea that unused land in New Zealand should be the property of the state as "the Crown's racist 'wasteland' policy". This was not so.
The suggestion was made in an 1844 report from a select committee of the House of Commons, which was chaired by a Wakefield sympathiser, Earl Grey. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Stanley, refused to countenance any such measure. It never was official policy. When he became Secretary of State for War and the Colonies in 1846, Earl Grey had not changed his views, He prepared a new statute claiming that the Queen was entitled in right of her Crown to any waste lands in the colony, and the Governor could alienate such lands.
This was widely recognised to be contrary to the Treaty of Waitangi, and to the policies under which New Zealand was governed. Maori were disturbed. There was an outcry from missionaries and many other New Zealanders. Governor George Grey was opposed.
Faced with such a barrage of criticism Earl Grey was forced to abandon his projects. Crown policy returned to its recognition that all unsold land belonged to Maori.
JOHN ROBINSON
Wellington
NO ENGLISH VERSION
Several weeks after the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed in Northland, the Crown dispatched Captain William Cornwallis Symonds to seek the aid of local missionaries in obtaining the signatures of Maori chiefs residing at the South Head of the Manukau Harbour, at Port Waikato, at Kawhia, and further south down to Taranaki.
Captain Symonds arrived at Port Waikato to find Reverend Maunsell had already taken advantage of a hui convened for another purpose to present the Treaty to local chiefs. That meeting had been held on April 11, 1840, before a large Maori assembly of approximately 1500. The official Maori language document, sent to Maunsell from Government House in the Bay of Islands and signed by acting Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby Shortland, hadn't been available to him at the hui, since it only showed up with Captain Symonds on April 14, 1840, some three days after the fact.
For the April 11, 1840 meeting Maunsell had instead utilised an authorised Maori text, printed by the Church Mission are Society. Two hundred of these documents had been produced by Paihia Mission printer William Colenso on February 17, 1840, for the information of CMS missionaries at other mission stations, and sent down by Colenso from Paihia via Captain Brown on March 4, 1840. Maunsell also had in his possession one of Colonial Secretary James Stuart Freeman's hand-written, unauthorised 'Royal Style' English Treaty texts penned for overseas dispatch on Freeman's assumption that this pretentious 'diplomatese' was more suitable for its intended audience.
How Maunsell had come by a copy of Freeman's document remains unclear, but we know for certain that it was not sent to him by the Governor for use at his meeting of April 1840, since it was not until several days afterwards, that Maunsell had access to any official Treaty document.
Maunsell presented the chiefs and tribes assembled at Waikato Heads with the standard Maori Treaty version, as set out in the CMS-printed Treaty text and identical to that delivered orally at other meetings held elsewhere in New Zealand. The first chiefs coming forward signed on the CMS Mission-printed sheet, but quickly ran out of room. Since paper was undoubtedly at a premium in pre-European New Zealand, the blank space at the foot of Freeman's unofficial hand-written English language version was soon pressed into service to accommodate the signatures that wouldn't fit onto Maunsell's printed Maori version. Freeman's unauthorised piece of paper was used at Waikato Heads in no other capacity but to receive 32 overflow signatures for which there was no space on the printed Maori version after it had been filled up by earlier signatories.
Reverend Maunsell wrote a letter to Governor Hobson, describing what had transpired locally and passed both documents to Captain Symonds, who later returned to the Manukau Heads, where he obtained seven further signatures to Freeman's unauthorised English version. This paper ended up bearing the signatures of some 39 chiefs resident at Port Waikato and Manukau Heads.
By now it must be clear the 'English version' that appears in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and amendments is simply an accident of history. Had the blank paper at the foot of a ship's bill of lading or a stores manifest been used to capture the 39 additional Port Waikato and Manukau Heads signatures there would be no need for this discussion. The chiefs who signed the Treaty at Port Waikato and Manukau Heads, and all those who did so elsewhere, accepted its provisions based entirely on an oral delivery of the Maori text, making the Maori Treaty version New Zealand's "true and only" Treaty.
An English Treaty version was only written into the Labour Party's Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to hand Treaty claimants the opportunity to exploit the differences between the two texts in transferring assets and rights to Maori, thus keeping them firmly m the tent for Labour.
Even if one is prepared to accept that the English version in current statute law should apply to interpreting the Treaty today, the notion that two Treaty versions exist in different languages can only be sustained by buying into the revisionist fiction that the Treaty was with a collective 'Maori.' Contrary to modern-day misrepresentation, the Treaty of Waitangi was not with a collective 'Maori,' but with tribes, most of whom signed it, some of whom didn't.
Under the legal doctrine of Privity of Contract, only the parties to an agreement are bound by it, or can claim its protection in the event of a breach. Accordingly, only those descended from the hapu of the 39 chiefs who signed the English version at Port Waikato and Manukau Heads can attempt to argue that there are two Treaty versions, and that the English version should apply to them. If validated, this would deny them recourse to the Maori version, since their ancestors never signed it. These 39 chiefs represent fewer than eight per cent of those who originally signed the Treaty, whereas the other 92 percent of chiefs accepted and endorsed only the Maori version.
This would naturally serve to disbar the vast majority of tribes from making Treaty claims based on the English version. But, as shown above, there is no English version. The historical record demonstrates conclusively that the Treaty of Waitangi Act must be amended to strike out that bogus and non-existent fabrication. This renders all Treaty pay-outs handed over on the basis of the English version, such as those to forests and fisheries, null and void. And any tribe who wrongly received such settlements should be required to repay this money to the Crown with interest.
REUBEN P CHAPPLE
Auckland
MONSTROUS CHARADE
In recent years, with the powerful advocacy of the Waitangi Tribunal, which always supports tribal claims, the Maori tribal elite has done marvellously well at the expense of the other citizens of New Zealand, yet many of their claims are false— those of Ngai Tahu, Tainui, Te Roroa, Ngatitoa Ngapuhi and Ngati Tuwharetoa to name a few. Now they are switching to fabricated stories of "land loss," yet the chiefs freely and eagerly sold two-thirds of New Zealand before 1840, and commenced doing so again after that date, and that they did so cheaply indicates how little they valued it.
The fundamentally false position of many of their prominent advocates is there for all to see — Tariana Turia with an American father, Steve O'Regan, son of an Irishman and about one-sixteenth Maori, Peter Sharpies with two Yorkshire grandparents. Remember that it was he who recited umpteen generations of his alleged whakapapa' at the UN, apparently impressing his naive listeners there with his "indigeneity"— what nonsense!
Then we have Anahera Herbert-Graves, who states that she is a member of all the tribes in the Tail of the Fish (Northland to most of us) and a few more, but her palpably English surname suggests a deliberate intention to conceal substantial white ancestry. How honest is that?
In a recent moment of truth, the late Ranginui Walker told Susan Devoy that he was the offspring of four ethnic groups Maori and Chinese, Lebanese and European. Why don't the others do the same? If these people are Maori then they are indeed examples of what Herbert-Graves calls survivors "as a 'golden tinge' on the skins of the Pakeha". And so we have their never-ending "grievances" about the alleged injustices suffered by a small minority of their ancestors, inflicted by people who were the majority of their own ancestors. Of course the rest of us must pay up in consequence. How absurd is that?
We also have "white-necks", guilt-ridden "liberals" evidently, who are their fellow-travellers.
It is Herbert-Graves' advice "that we also ought to work with our Pakeha allies, like those from Network Waitangi" A look at these people's documents shows what they are. One commences with the modern lie that "The Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership document"; another claims to encourage "those who do not have Maori ancestry to understand the Treaty of Waitangi." The arrogant presumption in this claim is breath-taking.
It is utterances such as these which actively promote false accounts of New Zealand's history, racist divisions and the destruction of democracy.
Recall that commentator Robert Wright wrote in The Atlantic Magazine for November 2013: "People magnify their grievances and do the reverse with their rivals …The intense tribalism we are seeing, domestically and internationally, does suggest that we may be approaching a point of true planetary peril."
New Zealand's recent history gives us copybook examples of such disastrous behaviour. It is high time that this monstrous charade was ended. We are fools if we let it continue.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
Wairarapa Times-Age 7/4/16
MAORI AGENDA
I enjoyed Mick Ludden’s letter ( T-A March 29 (below).
I am particularly grateful to him for dispelling my ignorance about ‘what is going on in the education sector’.
I now know there is an aggressive Maori separatist agenda that is not accountable to anyone despite being financed from public funds!
D F
Masterton