Post by Kiwi Frontline on Sept 16, 2018 5:51:20 GMT 12
Letter to the editor (Sent to the Tauranga Sun 10/9/18)
In response to letters from Parish,Dey and Jacombs and to substantiate what R Paterson is suggesting re the Maori language. You have to realise that back in 1840 there were no such people as the Maori Race, they were all separate tribes that came from Taiwan, India and the South Pacific that's why they were always fighting each other along with other dreadful things. therefore they all had different dialects and then it was the English Colonials that created a written language for them when the treaty was signed in 1840 still as the United Tribes. It wasn't til around 1860-70 that somehow they evolved to become the Maori race. Maori were not indigenous!
So, why should we 85 percent of the population have it forced on us to have Te Reo language made compulsory as suggested? By all means have it as an option, for those who wish to learn. The people are tiring of this language obsession, that every library has a Maori label ,no English at all, place names being changed to Maori. What a headache to Tourists never mind the locals! All to appease a minority.
C HUMPHREYS, Katikati
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 8/9/18)
To get the full understanding of the treaty David James (letters 7/9/18) and fellow treaty twisters need to look at the total Maori language text (that over 500 chiefs signed) to see what is said elsewhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than making stuff up.
The preamble shows references to both Maori (already here), and Settlers (here and arriving). Also clearly states for the protection of settlers as well as the natives.
Article One, the chiefs (Maori) cede sovereignty.
Article Two, property rights for Chiefs and tribes (Maori), and ALL the people of New Zealand (settlers and others)
Article Three, for the cession of their (Maori) Sovereignty they shall be protected by the Queen and have the rights and privileges of British subjects (settlers were already subjects there was no need to mention them here).
James harps on about ‘New Zealanders’, the term not even mentioned in the Treaty or Bruce Moon’s letter (27/8/18), he has convinced nobody.
GEOFF PARKER Whangarei
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northern Advocate 7/9/18)
Thomas Lauterbach’s besottedness with the Maori language (letters 8th August) is not shared by over 75% of Kiwis as various public polls regularly show. And the ‘Maori race’ numbers are only propped up by the controversial statutory definition in the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974.
Apart from State Schools prohibiting Maori language being spoken in schools (1860s), at the request of the astute Maori elders, there has never been any law preventing Maori from maintaining or speaking their language and of course this should be encouraged.
It seems, Maori like the cuckoo bird are depositing their language in everyone else’s nest in the hope that it will survive, as they seemingly have not the interest nor the will to nurture it themselves. The catalyst currently is people are being forced to learn Maori if they want a job, retain their job or get a promotion and that is unacceptable compulsion.
Lauterbach also seems unaware of the ceaseless government promotion and the tens of millions of dollars pumped into Maori language every year by the Kiwi taxpayer, money that would be far better spent on health, housing and beneficial education for all Kiwis.
While the Maori language and culture may be treasured by those few who value it, to others who do not it means very little.
GEOFF PARKER Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 6/9/18)
TREATY TWISTING AND SELF-INTEREST
Jock Lee (Wanganui Chronicle 6/9/18) doesn’t appear to know he is using a fabricated version of Te Tiriti to espouse his personal ideology in criticising Don Brash.
He is using the re-translation done by Sir Hugh Kawharu and promoted by the Waitangi Tribunal.
This was not the treaty signed by chiefs in 1840 that was drafted in English and translated into Maori with the word “rangatiratanga” in article 2 translating the word “possession”.
Article 2 confirmed and guaranteed “to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”.
Mr Lee is following a re-definition of “possession” as “chiefly authority” arrived at by Kawharu who translated “rangatiratanga” from Maori according to what he in the 1980s thought the chiefs might have understood in 1840.
Kawharu ignored missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account in which it was quite clear that chiefs understood and many did not like the prospect of ceding sovereignty.
If truth is an “essential precursor to reconciliation” then we should at least pay attention to a truthful understanding of the words of the treaty.
Mr Lee may not have realised that treaty twisting has got us into a divided mess.
MIKE BUTLER, Hastings
Dear Editor, (Short & Sweet section) (Sent to the NZ Herald 6/9/18)
Re John Tamihere’s ‘Deep respect in Kingitanga movement’ - this movement, which threatened to attack Auckland in the 1860s, was a rejection of European rule, and ultimately of European influence which was in contrast to the unity in the Treaty of Waitangi. In short – a treaty breach.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
In response to letters from Parish,Dey and Jacombs and to substantiate what R Paterson is suggesting re the Maori language. You have to realise that back in 1840 there were no such people as the Maori Race, they were all separate tribes that came from Taiwan, India and the South Pacific that's why they were always fighting each other along with other dreadful things. therefore they all had different dialects and then it was the English Colonials that created a written language for them when the treaty was signed in 1840 still as the United Tribes. It wasn't til around 1860-70 that somehow they evolved to become the Maori race. Maori were not indigenous!
So, why should we 85 percent of the population have it forced on us to have Te Reo language made compulsory as suggested? By all means have it as an option, for those who wish to learn. The people are tiring of this language obsession, that every library has a Maori label ,no English at all, place names being changed to Maori. What a headache to Tourists never mind the locals! All to appease a minority.
C HUMPHREYS, Katikati
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 8/9/18)
To get the full understanding of the treaty David James (letters 7/9/18) and fellow treaty twisters need to look at the total Maori language text (that over 500 chiefs signed) to see what is said elsewhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than making stuff up.
The preamble shows references to both Maori (already here), and Settlers (here and arriving). Also clearly states for the protection of settlers as well as the natives.
Article One, the chiefs (Maori) cede sovereignty.
Article Two, property rights for Chiefs and tribes (Maori), and ALL the people of New Zealand (settlers and others)
Article Three, for the cession of their (Maori) Sovereignty they shall be protected by the Queen and have the rights and privileges of British subjects (settlers were already subjects there was no need to mention them here).
James harps on about ‘New Zealanders’, the term not even mentioned in the Treaty or Bruce Moon’s letter (27/8/18), he has convinced nobody.
GEOFF PARKER Whangarei
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northern Advocate 7/9/18)
Thomas Lauterbach’s besottedness with the Maori language (letters 8th August) is not shared by over 75% of Kiwis as various public polls regularly show. And the ‘Maori race’ numbers are only propped up by the controversial statutory definition in the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974.
Apart from State Schools prohibiting Maori language being spoken in schools (1860s), at the request of the astute Maori elders, there has never been any law preventing Maori from maintaining or speaking their language and of course this should be encouraged.
It seems, Maori like the cuckoo bird are depositing their language in everyone else’s nest in the hope that it will survive, as they seemingly have not the interest nor the will to nurture it themselves. The catalyst currently is people are being forced to learn Maori if they want a job, retain their job or get a promotion and that is unacceptable compulsion.
Lauterbach also seems unaware of the ceaseless government promotion and the tens of millions of dollars pumped into Maori language every year by the Kiwi taxpayer, money that would be far better spent on health, housing and beneficial education for all Kiwis.
While the Maori language and culture may be treasured by those few who value it, to others who do not it means very little.
GEOFF PARKER Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 6/9/18)
TREATY TWISTING AND SELF-INTEREST
Jock Lee (Wanganui Chronicle 6/9/18) doesn’t appear to know he is using a fabricated version of Te Tiriti to espouse his personal ideology in criticising Don Brash.
He is using the re-translation done by Sir Hugh Kawharu and promoted by the Waitangi Tribunal.
This was not the treaty signed by chiefs in 1840 that was drafted in English and translated into Maori with the word “rangatiratanga” in article 2 translating the word “possession”.
Article 2 confirmed and guaranteed “to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”.
Mr Lee is following a re-definition of “possession” as “chiefly authority” arrived at by Kawharu who translated “rangatiratanga” from Maori according to what he in the 1980s thought the chiefs might have understood in 1840.
Kawharu ignored missionary William Colenso’s eyewitness account in which it was quite clear that chiefs understood and many did not like the prospect of ceding sovereignty.
If truth is an “essential precursor to reconciliation” then we should at least pay attention to a truthful understanding of the words of the treaty.
Mr Lee may not have realised that treaty twisting has got us into a divided mess.
MIKE BUTLER, Hastings
Dear Editor, (Short & Sweet section) (Sent to the NZ Herald 6/9/18)
Re John Tamihere’s ‘Deep respect in Kingitanga movement’ - this movement, which threatened to attack Auckland in the 1860s, was a rejection of European rule, and ultimately of European influence which was in contrast to the unity in the Treaty of Waitangi. In short – a treaty breach.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters