Post by Kiwi Frontline on May 16, 2019 4:33:59 GMT 12
Northland Age 16/5/19
STOLEN FROM WHOM?
Who does Anahera Herbert-Graves (May 14) think the Crown stole our foreshore and seabed from? If Maori is her answer, then that is bollocks.
In 1840, under English Common Law, the F&S was managed/regulated by the Crown or democratically elected officers for the good of the general public.
The wise chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to cede sovereignty to the Queen of England, and, in return, became British subjects in accordance with the law of the time, including common law. Therefore it follows that the F&S was vested (not stolen) in the Crown. Yes, the chiefs themselves vested the F&S in the Crown on signing the treaty.
This is further evidenced in Rev John Warren’s (who was there on the day of signing) quote: “There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally of securing their proprietary right in the land and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only to happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations (mainly the French) by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England . . . ”
Article 2 in the Maori language Treaty states that all the people of New Zealand (not just Maori, but Maori included) are guaranteed legal ownership of their land (occupied or in usage at the time), houses and ordinary property (taonga). As a consequence, any customary rights to ‘other’ resources (F&S) were extinguished by the treaty.
Lastly, since 1840, as New Zealanders, Maori have always had access to, and the enjoyment and benefits of the F&S, but recently New Zealanders have not always had access to the F&S due to activist Maori actions, something for New Zealanders to think about in the current racist Maori claims to our foreshore and seabed.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
WAVES OF CHANGE
Vincent O’Malley (Waikato Times, May 11) may well be an acclaimed historian, but he is very biased against all things colonial.
His well researched history of the Land Wars devotes an entire chapter of 25 pages to Rangiaowhia and surroundings. Within that chapter there is no mention of the myth of innocent women and children being rounded up, locked in the Catholic church and burnt to death. This is a myth very easy to disprove.
On page 303 of his book is a painting of the new redoubt at Rangiaowhia, flanked by both the Catholic and Anglican churches. The truth is the church was dismantled in 1931.
O’Malley, in other writings and in interviews, frequently alludes to the church myth with no supporting evidence. An RNZ interview October 7, 2016 is worth looking at.
In his article he refers to the girls from Otorohanga ¯ College who were shocked to learn of massacres. Of course they were, as they had been told the same lie by a high-ranked Maori historian. I wonder if their petition would have gone ahead had that lie not been told?
O’Malley smugly goes on to deride the group known as Hobson’s Pledge as being treaty revisionist. Pardon? As far as I can work out, all they want is for all New Zealanders to be treated equally, as the Treaty was envisaged by Capt Hobson in 1840. They very much question the revision of the Treaty and the terms ‘principles’ and ‘partnership,’ which don’t appear in any of the documents of the day.
It is easy to deride Don Brash, but it is worth remembering that a founder and spokesperson for the group is Ms Casey Costello, a Maori of Ngapuhi descent.
He also jumps on the bandwagon by asking. “Would it hurt if Von Tempsky St, Hamilton, became Rewi Maniapoto St?”
It most definitely offends me, and is an insult to those city fathers who named the street in the first place. Did he pick on Von Tempsky because he had a German name, or because he was a good and loyal soldier following orders? If the latter then we would have to look closely at his superior officers too. Nixon, Cameron, Grey and Victoria are all streets in Hamilton.
Maybe Hamilton’s Mayor King should write to our Sovereign requesting consent to rename the main street as Tuheitia Way?
Rewi Maniapoto was indeed an effective leader during the Land Wars, but it is hard to forget that some 30 years earlier he took part in the siege of the pa at Pukerangiora, in Taranaki. That would probably rank as the worst interMaori battle of the Musket Wars. Many hundreds died, mainly women and children. Many were tortured and eaten, and many mothers threw their children off the 100m cliffs to avoid that fate.
I doubt whether Von Tempsky would have participated in such events.
Frankly, I am very disturbed, as a proud Hamilton-born New Zealander, to observe the waves of change that are being promoted by people who should know better. Today the divisions between Maori and other New Zealanders is greater than at any time in my life. and the divide is widening, thanks to people like Vincent O’Malley.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Taranaki Daily News 16/5/19
PAKEHA TOO CONTENTIOUS
Donald Murray makes valid points in his letter relating to Glenn McConnell's article on the word pakeha.
The Maori language is made up predominantly of words that come from two words and they can have different meanings depending on the pronunciation.
A local example is the meaning of Rahotu. Pronounced Ra-hotu is entirely different from Raho-tu as to reo speakers will appreciate.
The word pakeha, whether an abbreviation of an original word and meaning or not, pronounced as pake-ha is not relevant. However, pronounced as pa-keha (which is how I've heard it pronounced in Maori action chants and songs) is entirely a different matter.
The Maori dictionary tells us that pa can refer to any Maori village or defence settlement.
The word keha (as a noun) is a flea or blood sucking insect, and may also be interpreted as sore or ulcer. Pa-keha in this context then could be seen as an insinuation of white non Maori being a parasite or an infection that has invaded the living place of Maori.
From what I get from the Maori dictionary if you want to call a white man the same in to reo it would be tangata ma or tane koma (tane - man and koma - whitish. pale or, pallid).
A poll taken in 2012 had 66 per cent believing that pakeha was an insult and 44 per cent Maori believed the same. It's too contentious to continue to allow it.
DENNIS STEWART, New Plymouth
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
STOLEN FROM WHOM?
Who does Anahera Herbert-Graves (May 14) think the Crown stole our foreshore and seabed from? If Maori is her answer, then that is bollocks.
In 1840, under English Common Law, the F&S was managed/regulated by the Crown or democratically elected officers for the good of the general public.
The wise chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to cede sovereignty to the Queen of England, and, in return, became British subjects in accordance with the law of the time, including common law. Therefore it follows that the F&S was vested (not stolen) in the Crown. Yes, the chiefs themselves vested the F&S in the Crown on signing the treaty.
This is further evidenced in Rev John Warren’s (who was there on the day of signing) quote: “There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally of securing their proprietary right in the land and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only to happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations (mainly the French) by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England . . . ”
Article 2 in the Maori language Treaty states that all the people of New Zealand (not just Maori, but Maori included) are guaranteed legal ownership of their land (occupied or in usage at the time), houses and ordinary property (taonga). As a consequence, any customary rights to ‘other’ resources (F&S) were extinguished by the treaty.
Lastly, since 1840, as New Zealanders, Maori have always had access to, and the enjoyment and benefits of the F&S, but recently New Zealanders have not always had access to the F&S due to activist Maori actions, something for New Zealanders to think about in the current racist Maori claims to our foreshore and seabed.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
WAVES OF CHANGE
Vincent O’Malley (Waikato Times, May 11) may well be an acclaimed historian, but he is very biased against all things colonial.
His well researched history of the Land Wars devotes an entire chapter of 25 pages to Rangiaowhia and surroundings. Within that chapter there is no mention of the myth of innocent women and children being rounded up, locked in the Catholic church and burnt to death. This is a myth very easy to disprove.
On page 303 of his book is a painting of the new redoubt at Rangiaowhia, flanked by both the Catholic and Anglican churches. The truth is the church was dismantled in 1931.
O’Malley, in other writings and in interviews, frequently alludes to the church myth with no supporting evidence. An RNZ interview October 7, 2016 is worth looking at.
In his article he refers to the girls from Otorohanga ¯ College who were shocked to learn of massacres. Of course they were, as they had been told the same lie by a high-ranked Maori historian. I wonder if their petition would have gone ahead had that lie not been told?
O’Malley smugly goes on to deride the group known as Hobson’s Pledge as being treaty revisionist. Pardon? As far as I can work out, all they want is for all New Zealanders to be treated equally, as the Treaty was envisaged by Capt Hobson in 1840. They very much question the revision of the Treaty and the terms ‘principles’ and ‘partnership,’ which don’t appear in any of the documents of the day.
It is easy to deride Don Brash, but it is worth remembering that a founder and spokesperson for the group is Ms Casey Costello, a Maori of Ngapuhi descent.
He also jumps on the bandwagon by asking. “Would it hurt if Von Tempsky St, Hamilton, became Rewi Maniapoto St?”
It most definitely offends me, and is an insult to those city fathers who named the street in the first place. Did he pick on Von Tempsky because he had a German name, or because he was a good and loyal soldier following orders? If the latter then we would have to look closely at his superior officers too. Nixon, Cameron, Grey and Victoria are all streets in Hamilton.
Maybe Hamilton’s Mayor King should write to our Sovereign requesting consent to rename the main street as Tuheitia Way?
Rewi Maniapoto was indeed an effective leader during the Land Wars, but it is hard to forget that some 30 years earlier he took part in the siege of the pa at Pukerangiora, in Taranaki. That would probably rank as the worst interMaori battle of the Musket Wars. Many hundreds died, mainly women and children. Many were tortured and eaten, and many mothers threw their children off the 100m cliffs to avoid that fate.
I doubt whether Von Tempsky would have participated in such events.
Frankly, I am very disturbed, as a proud Hamilton-born New Zealander, to observe the waves of change that are being promoted by people who should know better. Today the divisions between Maori and other New Zealanders is greater than at any time in my life. and the divide is widening, thanks to people like Vincent O’Malley.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Taranaki Daily News 16/5/19
PAKEHA TOO CONTENTIOUS
Donald Murray makes valid points in his letter relating to Glenn McConnell's article on the word pakeha.
The Maori language is made up predominantly of words that come from two words and they can have different meanings depending on the pronunciation.
A local example is the meaning of Rahotu. Pronounced Ra-hotu is entirely different from Raho-tu as to reo speakers will appreciate.
The word pakeha, whether an abbreviation of an original word and meaning or not, pronounced as pake-ha is not relevant. However, pronounced as pa-keha (which is how I've heard it pronounced in Maori action chants and songs) is entirely a different matter.
The Maori dictionary tells us that pa can refer to any Maori village or defence settlement.
The word keha (as a noun) is a flea or blood sucking insect, and may also be interpreted as sore or ulcer. Pa-keha in this context then could be seen as an insinuation of white non Maori being a parasite or an infection that has invaded the living place of Maori.
From what I get from the Maori dictionary if you want to call a white man the same in to reo it would be tangata ma or tane koma (tane - man and koma - whitish. pale or, pallid).
A poll taken in 2012 had 66 per cent believing that pakeha was an insult and 44 per cent Maori believed the same. It's too contentious to continue to allow it.
DENNIS STEWART, New Plymouth
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers