Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 8, 2016 8:05:49 GMT 12
Bay of Plenty Times 8/4/16
INFIGHTING RIFE
Bryan Johnson’s letter ( Letters, April 7) about the so-called Land Wars also raises concerns in me.
The history of our country is bei ng c herry- pi c ked and overlooking the real tragedy which was the thousands of Maori who died at the hands of their own people pre-1840.
My old book, A Centennial History of Tauranga tells of the taking of Tauranga by Ngati Ranginui and details this nasty affair involving the planned drowning of two children to provoke battle, followed by much biffo and bloodshed.
Warfare was an integral part of the Maori way of life and utu was a response to any offence given. It was the arrival of the colonists at the request of Ngapuhi leaders, and the missionaries who taught Christianity to Maori, which finally ended their centuries of warfare.
Are these battles being faithfully recorded as a true history, or are our children being whitewashed with a euphemistic story of a peaceful utopia until the colonists arrived to spoil it all?
R B
Tauranga
Wanganui Chronicle 8/4/16
TREATY MISTRUTHS
Potonga Neilson needs to start using the Norse side of his brain, because then he may get a better perspective of the world generally instead of wallowing in La La land.
The Maori version (Tiriti o Waitangi) is the only legitimate treaty, being translated from the Busby/Hobson final draft (aka Littlewood draft) into Maori by Williams.
It has only three articles, all very simple and straightforward, (a benign document we can all live with) despite efforts by treatyists, separatists and revisionists to embrace Humpty Dumpty's pronouncement "that the words mean what I want them to mean" then rabbiting on ad nauseam, concocting fabricated interpretations to accommodate hidden agendas.
There were never any Treaty principles, there is no partnership and one would have to be a Post-1975 PC lawyer/judge/politician or separatist hooked on legal fictions to think otherwise.
After 175 years surely we as Kiwis can progress and get on with our lives, free from the revisionist and separatist Treaty nonsense being espoused, which frankly has no place in the Kiwi psyche. Along with around 80 per cent of Kiwis, I am well and truly over the charade.
R P
Matapihi
TREATY'S PURPOSE
Maureen J Anderson (letters, March 23) is right about the Treaty of Waitangi.
To add to her letter, the Treaty gave sovereignty to Britain and tangata Maori, not tangata whenua, the same rights as the people of England under the dependency of New South Wales until 1841. On May 3, 1841 the Treaty had served its purpose of gaining sovereignty over the islands of New Zealand and giving tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England — no more, no less.
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in the first five months of 1840 by over 500 chiefs, was a document to allow New Zealand to come under British sovereignty and laws. This was explained by Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, in his book The Treaty of Waitangi. He stated: "The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws."
He also said: "If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors, who gave away their rights when they were strong."
I B
Wanganui
The New Zealand Herald 8/4/16
KERMADEC CASE
Nick Smith's announcement of the 620,000sq km ocean sanctuary is brilliant. This is exactly the stuff we need for global fish stock to regenerate.
This area, about 1000km northeast of New Zealand, only became officially part of New Zealand because of the extension of exclusive economic zones agreed by the United Nations in 1982 as part of territorial definitions.
So I shake my head, stare at the sky, and cringe when the Maori gravy train proclaim rights to this piece of New Zealand they never lived in, never fished, never heard of, that only became part of New Zealand because of modern political and legal machinations.
D F
Grey Lynn.
INFIGHTING RIFE
Bryan Johnson’s letter ( Letters, April 7) about the so-called Land Wars also raises concerns in me.
The history of our country is bei ng c herry- pi c ked and overlooking the real tragedy which was the thousands of Maori who died at the hands of their own people pre-1840.
My old book, A Centennial History of Tauranga tells of the taking of Tauranga by Ngati Ranginui and details this nasty affair involving the planned drowning of two children to provoke battle, followed by much biffo and bloodshed.
Warfare was an integral part of the Maori way of life and utu was a response to any offence given. It was the arrival of the colonists at the request of Ngapuhi leaders, and the missionaries who taught Christianity to Maori, which finally ended their centuries of warfare.
Are these battles being faithfully recorded as a true history, or are our children being whitewashed with a euphemistic story of a peaceful utopia until the colonists arrived to spoil it all?
R B
Tauranga
Wanganui Chronicle 8/4/16
TREATY MISTRUTHS
Potonga Neilson needs to start using the Norse side of his brain, because then he may get a better perspective of the world generally instead of wallowing in La La land.
The Maori version (Tiriti o Waitangi) is the only legitimate treaty, being translated from the Busby/Hobson final draft (aka Littlewood draft) into Maori by Williams.
It has only three articles, all very simple and straightforward, (a benign document we can all live with) despite efforts by treatyists, separatists and revisionists to embrace Humpty Dumpty's pronouncement "that the words mean what I want them to mean" then rabbiting on ad nauseam, concocting fabricated interpretations to accommodate hidden agendas.
There were never any Treaty principles, there is no partnership and one would have to be a Post-1975 PC lawyer/judge/politician or separatist hooked on legal fictions to think otherwise.
After 175 years surely we as Kiwis can progress and get on with our lives, free from the revisionist and separatist Treaty nonsense being espoused, which frankly has no place in the Kiwi psyche. Along with around 80 per cent of Kiwis, I am well and truly over the charade.
R P
Matapihi
TREATY'S PURPOSE
Maureen J Anderson (letters, March 23) is right about the Treaty of Waitangi.
To add to her letter, the Treaty gave sovereignty to Britain and tangata Maori, not tangata whenua, the same rights as the people of England under the dependency of New South Wales until 1841. On May 3, 1841 the Treaty had served its purpose of gaining sovereignty over the islands of New Zealand and giving tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England — no more, no less.
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in the first five months of 1840 by over 500 chiefs, was a document to allow New Zealand to come under British sovereignty and laws. This was explained by Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, in his book The Treaty of Waitangi. He stated: "The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws."
He also said: "If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors, who gave away their rights when they were strong."
I B
Wanganui
The New Zealand Herald 8/4/16
KERMADEC CASE
Nick Smith's announcement of the 620,000sq km ocean sanctuary is brilliant. This is exactly the stuff we need for global fish stock to regenerate.
This area, about 1000km northeast of New Zealand, only became officially part of New Zealand because of the extension of exclusive economic zones agreed by the United Nations in 1982 as part of territorial definitions.
So I shake my head, stare at the sky, and cringe when the Maori gravy train proclaim rights to this piece of New Zealand they never lived in, never fished, never heard of, that only became part of New Zealand because of modern political and legal machinations.
D F
Grey Lynn.