Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 9, 2019 6:33:20 GMT 12
Hawkes Bay Today 9/2/19 (Also published in Waikato Times 9/2/19)
FOUNDING DOCUMENT
That the Prime Minister did not know the articles of the Treaty is not surprising as it appears neither does any other Cabinet minister or Member of Parliament. Otherwise they would not have allowed its corruption over the past 50 years.
The Prime Minister, acknowledging that she could not quote the articles, said “I know the principles well”.
No principles are mentioned anywhere in the document. She is only perpetuating the erroneous inclusion of the fake principles and partnership in the document. The Treaty is not our founding document.
Its sole purpose was to enable the chiefs to grant sovereignty to the Queen, in perpetuity, and in doing so New Zealand came under the legal control of the Colony of New South Wales.
Our “founding document” is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charters/Letters Patent which made us a self-governing colony.
This document has been hidden away in archives and conveniently ignored by politicians and Maori Treaty revisionists.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
LET’S PADDLE TOGETHER
We have had a most enjoyable couple of hours at Waitangi celebrations. I added two special plants to my collection, ate some yummy food and went for a ride in the colourful waka, an important connection with my Maori heritage as a New Zealand citizen.
There is some controversy linked with the Treaty of Waitangi. This is a document signed well over a century ago by people who did not realise what the implications of what they were doing would be.
Can we not see this now as a commitment to partnership for our health and wellbeing and the sustainability of resources for the future of our unique environment? Our lives are enriched by an appreciation of each other’s cultural heritage and an awareness that, unless we can paddle together, we will not be able to keep this country afloat.
M ROBERTSON Havelock North
Waikato Times 9/2/19
HISTORY AND SEMANTICS
I fully support a return to teaching NZ history in our schools, provided it starts with substantial content about our preMaori history and avoids taking liberty with the term ‘‘indigenous people’’ when referring to Maori.
The Maori people are not: "1. naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place. 2. existing naturally or having always lived in a place; " (both Cambridge & Collins dictionaries).
Increasing use of the term indigenous within NZ is actually an insult to the Australian Aboriginal people and dilutes their status and authenticity. They did not come to Australia, conquer and cannibalise existing residents as the Maori did in NZ.
Our history started with early Chinese and various European-origin exploration of the southern seas before Maori landed here. It is statistically improbable that people from these very early ships (some still on our shores) did not survive on land and form small colonies.
Maori should face up to the reality that they were just proud conquerors of other peoples, just as the Romans were.
There is no shame in that; just admit it.
Being hell-bent on ramming this pseudo-indigenous fallacy down every New Zealander's throat just erodes their credibility and respect by others.
OWEN JONES, Ohaupo
Dominion Post 9/2/19
TREATY INTERPRETATIONS
Talk of compulsory teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi is worrying because differing opinions are so strongly held and some interpretations are obviously wrong.
Many "historians" twist the wording to say what they want it to say. For example "Treaty Educator" TeHuia Bill Hamilton (The Treaty: how are we doing on our promises to each other, Feb 5), who begins his analysis of Article One: "Rangatira gave the Crown an authority to govern." By 1840 the Crown was already governing and did not need the authority of the rangatira.
He goes on to state "the intention was that rangatira and the Crown would govern in partnership". Where is the evidence that this was the intention? The word "partnership" is not anywhere in the Treaty and does not appear until introduced by activists in the late 20th century.
Read the witness account of the signing by William Colenso and it is clear Maori did not understand the Treaty.
Confusion reigns.
The interpretation of the Treaty that becomes the version acceptable to educationists will probably be that of the strongest lobby group rather than an objective historical summation. [abridged]
DON BOSWELL, Eastbourne
BRASH SPEECH
Don Brash willingly accepts an invitation to speak at Te Tii Marae, although he may have expected a hostile reception at the place where he was once hit in the face with mud by angry protestors.
His address is given amid catcalls and accusations of racism and then the event organisers cut him off midway through his speech to introduce another speaker, who starts off "I used to feel the same way about Maori as Brash".
This new speaker described himself as a "recovering racist, having gone on a journey of challenging the Don Brash within".
On Thursday you published the thoughts of five Maori thinkers, with a sub-heading comment: "never mind Don Brash's views on Maoridom".
Well, it would have been useful to have had the opportunity to understand his views, which may have been possible if he had been permitted to finish his address.
Perhaps you could obtain and publish the transcript of his full speech so that we can make our own judgment.
MICHAEL BOLLAND, Oriental Bay
BUILDING BRIDGES
I am heartened by the words of both Winston Peters and the leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, at Waitangi this year.
Peters recognised that "Government can only do so much" (for Maori). "We have got to see in our own selves the seeds of our success - nowhere else."
Bridges agreed with the "clear conception of that speech [Don Brash's 2004 Orewa speech] that we shouldn't be doing things on the basis of race - it should be need."
Perhaps in coming months and years the advantages brought to all in this country by colonisation will be recognised, rather than the present perceived ills.
Perhaps the words of Sir Apirana Ngata may at last be fulfilled: "We are one people. He iwi tahi tatau."
IRENE FAGAN, Island Bay
Dominion Post 9/2/19 (To the point section)
I am all In favour of the teaching of New Zealand history In all our schools as widely as possible. Provided it is all our human history from when Maori first arrived and not just the colonial history as promoted by Myles Ferris (Five Maori thinkers, Feb 8).
The history of Maori pre-1840 makes pretty grim reading at times but that Is what it is. To deny It Is to present a sanitised view of New Zealand's past that does nobody any good.
GRAHAM DICK, Masterton
NZ Herald 9/2/19 (Short & Sweet section)
A correspondent finds “Pakeha” distasteful. To me it is fine no matter what its derivation. It carries the connection I feel with this land.
JUDY LAWRY, Golflands.
A hundred million to develop Ma¯ori land? What's happened to the $1 billion-plus in Treaty settlements?
KARL VAN DE WATER, Maungaturoto.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
FOUNDING DOCUMENT
That the Prime Minister did not know the articles of the Treaty is not surprising as it appears neither does any other Cabinet minister or Member of Parliament. Otherwise they would not have allowed its corruption over the past 50 years.
The Prime Minister, acknowledging that she could not quote the articles, said “I know the principles well”.
No principles are mentioned anywhere in the document. She is only perpetuating the erroneous inclusion of the fake principles and partnership in the document. The Treaty is not our founding document.
Its sole purpose was to enable the chiefs to grant sovereignty to the Queen, in perpetuity, and in doing so New Zealand came under the legal control of the Colony of New South Wales.
Our “founding document” is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charters/Letters Patent which made us a self-governing colony.
This document has been hidden away in archives and conveniently ignored by politicians and Maori Treaty revisionists.
BRYAN JOHNSON, Omokoroa
LET’S PADDLE TOGETHER
We have had a most enjoyable couple of hours at Waitangi celebrations. I added two special plants to my collection, ate some yummy food and went for a ride in the colourful waka, an important connection with my Maori heritage as a New Zealand citizen.
There is some controversy linked with the Treaty of Waitangi. This is a document signed well over a century ago by people who did not realise what the implications of what they were doing would be.
Can we not see this now as a commitment to partnership for our health and wellbeing and the sustainability of resources for the future of our unique environment? Our lives are enriched by an appreciation of each other’s cultural heritage and an awareness that, unless we can paddle together, we will not be able to keep this country afloat.
M ROBERTSON Havelock North
Waikato Times 9/2/19
HISTORY AND SEMANTICS
I fully support a return to teaching NZ history in our schools, provided it starts with substantial content about our preMaori history and avoids taking liberty with the term ‘‘indigenous people’’ when referring to Maori.
The Maori people are not: "1. naturally existing in a place or country rather than arriving from another place. 2. existing naturally or having always lived in a place; " (both Cambridge & Collins dictionaries).
Increasing use of the term indigenous within NZ is actually an insult to the Australian Aboriginal people and dilutes their status and authenticity. They did not come to Australia, conquer and cannibalise existing residents as the Maori did in NZ.
Our history started with early Chinese and various European-origin exploration of the southern seas before Maori landed here. It is statistically improbable that people from these very early ships (some still on our shores) did not survive on land and form small colonies.
Maori should face up to the reality that they were just proud conquerors of other peoples, just as the Romans were.
There is no shame in that; just admit it.
Being hell-bent on ramming this pseudo-indigenous fallacy down every New Zealander's throat just erodes their credibility and respect by others.
OWEN JONES, Ohaupo
Dominion Post 9/2/19
TREATY INTERPRETATIONS
Talk of compulsory teaching of the Treaty of Waitangi is worrying because differing opinions are so strongly held and some interpretations are obviously wrong.
Many "historians" twist the wording to say what they want it to say. For example "Treaty Educator" TeHuia Bill Hamilton (The Treaty: how are we doing on our promises to each other, Feb 5), who begins his analysis of Article One: "Rangatira gave the Crown an authority to govern." By 1840 the Crown was already governing and did not need the authority of the rangatira.
He goes on to state "the intention was that rangatira and the Crown would govern in partnership". Where is the evidence that this was the intention? The word "partnership" is not anywhere in the Treaty and does not appear until introduced by activists in the late 20th century.
Read the witness account of the signing by William Colenso and it is clear Maori did not understand the Treaty.
Confusion reigns.
The interpretation of the Treaty that becomes the version acceptable to educationists will probably be that of the strongest lobby group rather than an objective historical summation. [abridged]
DON BOSWELL, Eastbourne
BRASH SPEECH
Don Brash willingly accepts an invitation to speak at Te Tii Marae, although he may have expected a hostile reception at the place where he was once hit in the face with mud by angry protestors.
His address is given amid catcalls and accusations of racism and then the event organisers cut him off midway through his speech to introduce another speaker, who starts off "I used to feel the same way about Maori as Brash".
This new speaker described himself as a "recovering racist, having gone on a journey of challenging the Don Brash within".
On Thursday you published the thoughts of five Maori thinkers, with a sub-heading comment: "never mind Don Brash's views on Maoridom".
Well, it would have been useful to have had the opportunity to understand his views, which may have been possible if he had been permitted to finish his address.
Perhaps you could obtain and publish the transcript of his full speech so that we can make our own judgment.
MICHAEL BOLLAND, Oriental Bay
BUILDING BRIDGES
I am heartened by the words of both Winston Peters and the leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, at Waitangi this year.
Peters recognised that "Government can only do so much" (for Maori). "We have got to see in our own selves the seeds of our success - nowhere else."
Bridges agreed with the "clear conception of that speech [Don Brash's 2004 Orewa speech] that we shouldn't be doing things on the basis of race - it should be need."
Perhaps in coming months and years the advantages brought to all in this country by colonisation will be recognised, rather than the present perceived ills.
Perhaps the words of Sir Apirana Ngata may at last be fulfilled: "We are one people. He iwi tahi tatau."
IRENE FAGAN, Island Bay
Dominion Post 9/2/19 (To the point section)
I am all In favour of the teaching of New Zealand history In all our schools as widely as possible. Provided it is all our human history from when Maori first arrived and not just the colonial history as promoted by Myles Ferris (Five Maori thinkers, Feb 8).
The history of Maori pre-1840 makes pretty grim reading at times but that Is what it is. To deny It Is to present a sanitised view of New Zealand's past that does nobody any good.
GRAHAM DICK, Masterton
NZ Herald 9/2/19 (Short & Sweet section)
A correspondent finds “Pakeha” distasteful. To me it is fine no matter what its derivation. It carries the connection I feel with this land.
JUDY LAWRY, Golflands.
A hundred million to develop Ma¯ori land? What's happened to the $1 billion-plus in Treaty settlements?
KARL VAN DE WATER, Maungaturoto.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers