Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 26, 2018 5:26:03 GMT 12
Dear Editor (Sent to the Dominion Post 19/8/8)
Its a funny old world where someone can be called a racist for advocating for democracy, equally of citizenship and supporting free speech.
Philip Mathews in his editorial claims that Don Brash's comments on the intellect of Jews is based on pseudo-science. An internet search would have shown him that there is plenty of recent research to support Brash's comment.
The Ashkenazim (a distinct Jewish race) average IQ, rates 15 points higher than average European/Caucasian IQ. Perhaps a read of, for example, J P Rushton and A R Jensen 2005 “Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability”, may give him some food for thought. www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Mathews is right that this is an area of research that causes unease but to brand it as “pseudo-science” because you, or, you believe others are offended by it, is elevate sensitivity over truth.
We need to be country where we celebrate our differences, where our diversity enriches us, where ethnicity matters but does not bestow privilege, where all all citizens are united equality under the law. If we continue down the path of separatism and don't unite as New Zealanders we will fail as country.
RICHARD PRINCE Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Press 19/8/18)
As an example of hate speech, your editorial by Philip Matthews on Don Brash (18/8/18) would be hard to beat. Neither Brash nor the Free Speech Coalition backed Southern and Molyneux as he claims. They did back their right to speak which is a very different thing.
His statements about Jews were simple facts but apparently our supposed right to free speech does not allow us to suggest that some cultures are actually superior to others. "Moral relativism" rules OK?
And at Orewa, what Brash actually said was “The Treaty of Waitangi should not be used as the basis for giving greater civil, political or democratic rights to anyparticular ethnic group.” [His emphasis]. If Matthews disagrees, perhaps he should explain why.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to The Press 15/8/18)
I fully concur with Fiona Elworthy that we must talk about our history and that the purpose of remembering should not be to sow division and disharmony but to bind us together as a nation that can openly and honestly confront its past. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Dr Vincent O’Malley is one of the foremost protagonists in doing precisely the opposite.
The dedication in his recent book The Great War for New Zealand which states “In memory of the victims of the Waikato War and those who founded and fought to defend the Kingitanga”, shows his partiality. Moreover, the contrast between what he says in interviews and book advertorials and what is published in his book speaks to an agenda quite different from what might be expected of a professional historian.
Again, I agree with Fiona Elworthy that it is important to learn the history of both sides to these conflicts - with the emphasis on both. That history needs to be assessed in the context of the times and with sensitivity to the fact that these are not stories from far flung lands but are our stories of our ancestors and our extended families.
CHRIS LEE, Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun/Sunlive 14/8/18)
GOVERNMENT DRIVEN COMPULSION
NewZealanders that assert a maori race as such doesn’t exist are quite correct as it meets no universal definition of race only being propped up by the controversial statutory (a legal fiction) definition in MaoriAffairsAmendmentAct 1974. Kiwis that affiliate to the maori label invariably have considerably more other ancestry than maori .
Treatyists besottedness with the maori language is not voluntarily shared by over 75% of Kiwis who don’t particularly treasure maori as various public polls regularly show.
Apart from State Schools (at request of Maori leaders) prohibiting maori language being spoken in schools, for a short time early last century, there has never been any law preventing maori from maintaining or speaking their language which is encouraged.
It seems, however maori like the cuckoo bird are depositing their modern fabricated language (bearing little resemblance to original maori language) in everyone else’s nest in the misguided hope that it might survive. The catalyst currently is that Kiwis are being forced to learn maori if they want a job or retain their job/get promotion and that is unacceptable COMPULSION.
Kiwi taxpayers, bankroll the maori language excesses annually - $millions that would be far better spent on health, housing and beneficial education for all Kiwis.
ROB PATERSON, Matapihi
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
Its a funny old world where someone can be called a racist for advocating for democracy, equally of citizenship and supporting free speech.
Philip Mathews in his editorial claims that Don Brash's comments on the intellect of Jews is based on pseudo-science. An internet search would have shown him that there is plenty of recent research to support Brash's comment.
The Ashkenazim (a distinct Jewish race) average IQ, rates 15 points higher than average European/Caucasian IQ. Perhaps a read of, for example, J P Rushton and A R Jensen 2005 “Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability”, may give him some food for thought. www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Mathews is right that this is an area of research that causes unease but to brand it as “pseudo-science” because you, or, you believe others are offended by it, is elevate sensitivity over truth.
We need to be country where we celebrate our differences, where our diversity enriches us, where ethnicity matters but does not bestow privilege, where all all citizens are united equality under the law. If we continue down the path of separatism and don't unite as New Zealanders we will fail as country.
RICHARD PRINCE Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Press 19/8/18)
As an example of hate speech, your editorial by Philip Matthews on Don Brash (18/8/18) would be hard to beat. Neither Brash nor the Free Speech Coalition backed Southern and Molyneux as he claims. They did back their right to speak which is a very different thing.
His statements about Jews were simple facts but apparently our supposed right to free speech does not allow us to suggest that some cultures are actually superior to others. "Moral relativism" rules OK?
And at Orewa, what Brash actually said was “The Treaty of Waitangi should not be used as the basis for giving greater civil, political or democratic rights to anyparticular ethnic group.” [His emphasis]. If Matthews disagrees, perhaps he should explain why.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to The Press 15/8/18)
I fully concur with Fiona Elworthy that we must talk about our history and that the purpose of remembering should not be to sow division and disharmony but to bind us together as a nation that can openly and honestly confront its past. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Dr Vincent O’Malley is one of the foremost protagonists in doing precisely the opposite.
The dedication in his recent book The Great War for New Zealand which states “In memory of the victims of the Waikato War and those who founded and fought to defend the Kingitanga”, shows his partiality. Moreover, the contrast between what he says in interviews and book advertorials and what is published in his book speaks to an agenda quite different from what might be expected of a professional historian.
Again, I agree with Fiona Elworthy that it is important to learn the history of both sides to these conflicts - with the emphasis on both. That history needs to be assessed in the context of the times and with sensitivity to the fact that these are not stories from far flung lands but are our stories of our ancestors and our extended families.
CHRIS LEE, Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun/Sunlive 14/8/18)
GOVERNMENT DRIVEN COMPULSION
NewZealanders that assert a maori race as such doesn’t exist are quite correct as it meets no universal definition of race only being propped up by the controversial statutory (a legal fiction) definition in MaoriAffairsAmendmentAct 1974. Kiwis that affiliate to the maori label invariably have considerably more other ancestry than maori .
Treatyists besottedness with the maori language is not voluntarily shared by over 75% of Kiwis who don’t particularly treasure maori as various public polls regularly show.
Apart from State Schools (at request of Maori leaders) prohibiting maori language being spoken in schools, for a short time early last century, there has never been any law preventing maori from maintaining or speaking their language which is encouraged.
It seems, however maori like the cuckoo bird are depositing their modern fabricated language (bearing little resemblance to original maori language) in everyone else’s nest in the misguided hope that it might survive. The catalyst currently is that Kiwis are being forced to learn maori if they want a job or retain their job/get promotion and that is unacceptable COMPULSION.
Kiwi taxpayers, bankroll the maori language excesses annually - $millions that would be far better spent on health, housing and beneficial education for all Kiwis.
ROB PATERSON, Matapihi
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters