Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 17, 2018 5:01:57 GMT 12
Waikato Times 17/11/18 (Also published in the Northern Advocate, Rotorua Daily Post 17/11/18)
HAKA CHALLENGE OKAY
In viewing the All Blacks v England game at Twickenham, I listened to the British rugby fans singing their hearts out to drown the All Blacks haka but was astonished to hear a NZ commentator question whether that was 'respectful'?
In my opinion, and I accept that I maybe a minority in my thinking, I thought their song was rousing and a reciprocal challenge to the haka.
It is an anathema to me that any international team opposing the All Blacks has to remain mute and respectful in the face of what in my opinion is a violent, intimidating war dance.
I lived for sport in my youth, and was always encouraged to try to win, but to understand that I was involved in a sporting game not war.
MAUREEN J ANDERSON, Tauranga
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 16/11/18
CHURCH SHOULD PAY
Last week's letters (The Weekend Sun, November 9) suggest we upset the Anglican and tribal elites by our earlier statement that, as the fee simple owner of the Tauranga land that it sold to the government in 1867, the Anglican Church did not need to get the approval of the local sub-tribes for its sale.
P Dey wrote “the original purchase came with an agreement that the land would be used for Church purposes". I would like to see this ‘agreement’ – in writing please, as oral history is notoriously unreliable.
If the Anglican Church persists in saying it was holding the land "in trust" for the sub-tribes, and that trust was violated by its 1867 sale to the government, then that would be the fault of the Church, not the Crown, and any compensation should come from the Church, not the taxpayer.
Instead the Church is supporting an application to the Waitangi Tribunal by Nga Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu to sting the taxpayer for several million dollars. Let the Church put its money where its mouth is. A good start would be to hand over its $6 million Holy Trinity convention centre to the two sub-tribes that it is so keen to enrich. (Abridged)
J MCLEAN, Wellington
MAUNDERING OVER BOOK
M Maunder of Otumoetai is certainly ‘maundering’ (talking in a rambling, foolish or meaningless way) when, in a recent letter to The Weekend Sun (November 9), he describes the British and colonial military as “invaders and conquerors” when, as early as November 1831, the Northern Tribes had requested King William to provide assistance in establishing ‘law and order’ in the land. This led to the Treaty and subsequently the arrival of British troops to support the government, colonists and Maori, and implement the Treaty. How can anyone invade one’s own country?
It is more likely that the local tribes sold the land to the CMS to prevent it being invaded by other tribes.
That he makes his judgment of ‘Gate Pa and Te Ranga’ after “skimming the ‘new’ book for 20 minutes” shows an unscholarly regard for research and invalidates subsequent comment. Somewhat ‘maundering’.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.
SPORT, NOT WAR
On viewing the All Blacks v England game at Twickenham, I listened to the British rugby fans singing their hearts out to drown the All Blacks haka but was astonished to hear a New Zealand commentator question whether that was ‘respectful’.
In my opinion, and I accept that I may be a minority in my thinking, I thought their song was rousing and a reciprocal challenge to the haka.
It is an anathema to me that any international team opposing the All Blacks has to remain mute and respectful in the face of what in my opinion is a violent, intimidating war dance.
I lived for sport in my youth, and was always encouraged to try to win, but to understand that I was involved in a sporting game, not war.
M ANDERSON, Pyes Pa.
PUT AN END TO APOLOGIES
The letters (The Weekend Sun, November 9) critical of our book are most welcome as they open debate.
M Maunder is correct in pointing out that the account in our new book is not new. We tell the full story, based on the accounts of the time, to counter imaginative new versions.
He points to the humane attitude of the Maori warriors, with reference to a Biblical quote found on Taratoa’s body. We agree, and quote historian James Cowan in a report of the “humanity and chivalry” of the rebels. This chivalrous behaviour had an influence on the peace that followed.
It was not always so: this resulted from decades of perseverance by missionaries. In 1833, Williams and Chapman risked their lives trying to put an end to the slaughter around Maketu between Arawa and Ngaiterangi, but did not succeed. In 1836, the call of Wilson and Wade that Waharoa spare the lives of captives was ignored.
The Anglican Church should cease its denigration of the early missionaries in its efforts to manufacture fault. The Church, and all of us, should put an end to these apologies, and act with pride to recognise and celebrate the great good done by these brave and dedicated men. (Abridged)
J ROBINSON, Wellington
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
HAKA CHALLENGE OKAY
In viewing the All Blacks v England game at Twickenham, I listened to the British rugby fans singing their hearts out to drown the All Blacks haka but was astonished to hear a NZ commentator question whether that was 'respectful'?
In my opinion, and I accept that I maybe a minority in my thinking, I thought their song was rousing and a reciprocal challenge to the haka.
It is an anathema to me that any international team opposing the All Blacks has to remain mute and respectful in the face of what in my opinion is a violent, intimidating war dance.
I lived for sport in my youth, and was always encouraged to try to win, but to understand that I was involved in a sporting game not war.
MAUREEN J ANDERSON, Tauranga
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 16/11/18
CHURCH SHOULD PAY
Last week's letters (The Weekend Sun, November 9) suggest we upset the Anglican and tribal elites by our earlier statement that, as the fee simple owner of the Tauranga land that it sold to the government in 1867, the Anglican Church did not need to get the approval of the local sub-tribes for its sale.
P Dey wrote “the original purchase came with an agreement that the land would be used for Church purposes". I would like to see this ‘agreement’ – in writing please, as oral history is notoriously unreliable.
If the Anglican Church persists in saying it was holding the land "in trust" for the sub-tribes, and that trust was violated by its 1867 sale to the government, then that would be the fault of the Church, not the Crown, and any compensation should come from the Church, not the taxpayer.
Instead the Church is supporting an application to the Waitangi Tribunal by Nga Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu to sting the taxpayer for several million dollars. Let the Church put its money where its mouth is. A good start would be to hand over its $6 million Holy Trinity convention centre to the two sub-tribes that it is so keen to enrich. (Abridged)
J MCLEAN, Wellington
MAUNDERING OVER BOOK
M Maunder of Otumoetai is certainly ‘maundering’ (talking in a rambling, foolish or meaningless way) when, in a recent letter to The Weekend Sun (November 9), he describes the British and colonial military as “invaders and conquerors” when, as early as November 1831, the Northern Tribes had requested King William to provide assistance in establishing ‘law and order’ in the land. This led to the Treaty and subsequently the arrival of British troops to support the government, colonists and Maori, and implement the Treaty. How can anyone invade one’s own country?
It is more likely that the local tribes sold the land to the CMS to prevent it being invaded by other tribes.
That he makes his judgment of ‘Gate Pa and Te Ranga’ after “skimming the ‘new’ book for 20 minutes” shows an unscholarly regard for research and invalidates subsequent comment. Somewhat ‘maundering’.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.
SPORT, NOT WAR
On viewing the All Blacks v England game at Twickenham, I listened to the British rugby fans singing their hearts out to drown the All Blacks haka but was astonished to hear a New Zealand commentator question whether that was ‘respectful’.
In my opinion, and I accept that I may be a minority in my thinking, I thought their song was rousing and a reciprocal challenge to the haka.
It is an anathema to me that any international team opposing the All Blacks has to remain mute and respectful in the face of what in my opinion is a violent, intimidating war dance.
I lived for sport in my youth, and was always encouraged to try to win, but to understand that I was involved in a sporting game, not war.
M ANDERSON, Pyes Pa.
PUT AN END TO APOLOGIES
The letters (The Weekend Sun, November 9) critical of our book are most welcome as they open debate.
M Maunder is correct in pointing out that the account in our new book is not new. We tell the full story, based on the accounts of the time, to counter imaginative new versions.
He points to the humane attitude of the Maori warriors, with reference to a Biblical quote found on Taratoa’s body. We agree, and quote historian James Cowan in a report of the “humanity and chivalry” of the rebels. This chivalrous behaviour had an influence on the peace that followed.
It was not always so: this resulted from decades of perseverance by missionaries. In 1833, Williams and Chapman risked their lives trying to put an end to the slaughter around Maketu between Arawa and Ngaiterangi, but did not succeed. In 1836, the call of Wilson and Wade that Waharoa spare the lives of captives was ignored.
The Anglican Church should cease its denigration of the early missionaries in its efforts to manufacture fault. The Church, and all of us, should put an end to these apologies, and act with pride to recognise and celebrate the great good done by these brave and dedicated men. (Abridged)
J ROBINSON, Wellington
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers