Post by Kiwi Frontline on Aug 2, 2019 7:12:42 GMT 12
Taranaki Daily Times 2/8/19
WHAT DID COLONIALISM DO?
Hate speech comes in many guises, but perhaps it is best defined by its baked-in divisiveness. The latest whipping boy is colonialism. It is blamed for everything from poverty to unemployment, child abuse and obesity. It has become an excuse that replaces personal responsibility: school absenteeism, appalling health statistics, violence and underperformance in education.
It is driving a distinct wedge between those of us with British heritage and those without.
In fact, although not perfect, it has given us an honest civil administration (priceless), a solid justice system, a democratic process among the world’s best, and, perhaps best of all, freedom from the threatened oppression by a foreign power in two world wars.
Merely pointing fingers at some admitted shortcomings is a severe distortion which sets up antagonisms that fit the hate speech framework.
Grievances seem to have metamorphosed out of context into modern garb. Two centuries ago violence, including killing, was almost a national and international sport. Possession or repossession was by conquest at all levels. Lawlessness called for harsh measures to contain it.
Modern disregard for the law and civil and social obligations cannot, and should not, be blamed on a system which shed much light in dark places.
The do-as-you-would-be-done-by principle leaves no room for shedding blame or driving societal wedges of hate. It is the worldwide single solution and we in New Zealand can provide an example if we wish to.
C PURDON, Hawera
Otago Daily Times 2/8/19
THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING BIAS OUT OF HISTORY
MOST people would agree with Jean Balchin in her opinion piece (ODT, 18.7.19), that ‘‘no doubt a great deal of our history is raw and discomforting, but it is nevertheless important to learn in its entirety. Education is a vital and fundamental disinfectant against biased myths and stories.’’
However, her account of history illustrates what she seeks to avoid.
She states that Captain Cook mapped the outline of ‘‘Aotearoa’’. Not according to the charts of the time. Maori did not have a commonly used name for the entire New Zealand archipelago. Aotearoa was one traditional name for the North Island alone.
It was ‘‘New Zealand’’ or the Dutch, French or Italian equivalent that Cook mapped. Up until the 1890s, it was either New Zealand or ‘‘Nu Tirani’’.
She asks how can recognition by Maori and Pakeha as ‘‘full Treaty partners’’ be achieved?
No reference to ‘‘partner’’ or ‘‘partnership’’ is to be found in the final draft of the Treaty, or the Treaty itself. The current fad for ‘‘partnership’’ is a gross misrepresentation of history and the Treaty.
As Ms Balchin observes, ‘‘as has been demonstrated ad infinitum over the centuries, crooked politicians, manipulators, and propagandists latch on to those who are ignorant of history, as they are more easily lied to’’. Righteousness can have the same effect.
BRUCE MASON, Ranfurly
Dominion Post 2/8/19
GOOD FOR MAORI
I must be a grumpy old white man but I’m struggling to empathise with the Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL) protesters at Ihumatao.
I understand that Pania Newton is passionate about the cause, but I’m surprised she cannot see the benefits of the Fletcher housing project, which will do more to help Maori than her plan to leave the land vacant as a reserve.
Given that Te Warena Taua supports the development, along with the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, then the differences with the mana whenua should have been resolved long before now, and without any need for intervention from the Government.
Surely this is a project that can be good for Maori and do something, albeit small, to help alleviate the housing shortage. Or am I being too simplistic and insensitive?
MIKE JARVIS, Paraparaumu Beach
Bay of Plenty Times 2/8/19
TAURANGA HISTORY
"Ridiculous" writes Peter Dey (Letters. July 26) regarding my calling Rawiri Puhirake a warmonger (Letters, July 20).
Dey assorts that Puhirake never attacked anybody and therefore is not a warmonger.
The definition of the word warmonger is 'one who urges or attempts to stir up war'. Attacking not required.
"Reputable historians totally disagrees with me claims Dey. Perhaps he could name them so we can evaluate how reputable they are.
I'm happy to name my sources, inter alia - the pre-eminent James Cowan. Alistair Reese's history of Tauranga recently written for the Anglican Church, Gifford and Williams 'A Centennial History of Tauranga.
Dey claims that the history written into Treaty settlements support his views. Quoting from the Ngai Te Rangi deed of settlement, "Puhirake and Ngai Te Rangi issued a series of challenges to the Crown to provoke it into fighting at specific locations”. That, in my opinion, meets the definition of warmongering.
RICHARD PRINCE Welcome Bay
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
WHAT DID COLONIALISM DO?
Hate speech comes in many guises, but perhaps it is best defined by its baked-in divisiveness. The latest whipping boy is colonialism. It is blamed for everything from poverty to unemployment, child abuse and obesity. It has become an excuse that replaces personal responsibility: school absenteeism, appalling health statistics, violence and underperformance in education.
It is driving a distinct wedge between those of us with British heritage and those without.
In fact, although not perfect, it has given us an honest civil administration (priceless), a solid justice system, a democratic process among the world’s best, and, perhaps best of all, freedom from the threatened oppression by a foreign power in two world wars.
Merely pointing fingers at some admitted shortcomings is a severe distortion which sets up antagonisms that fit the hate speech framework.
Grievances seem to have metamorphosed out of context into modern garb. Two centuries ago violence, including killing, was almost a national and international sport. Possession or repossession was by conquest at all levels. Lawlessness called for harsh measures to contain it.
Modern disregard for the law and civil and social obligations cannot, and should not, be blamed on a system which shed much light in dark places.
The do-as-you-would-be-done-by principle leaves no room for shedding blame or driving societal wedges of hate. It is the worldwide single solution and we in New Zealand can provide an example if we wish to.
C PURDON, Hawera
Otago Daily Times 2/8/19
THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING BIAS OUT OF HISTORY
MOST people would agree with Jean Balchin in her opinion piece (ODT, 18.7.19), that ‘‘no doubt a great deal of our history is raw and discomforting, but it is nevertheless important to learn in its entirety. Education is a vital and fundamental disinfectant against biased myths and stories.’’
However, her account of history illustrates what she seeks to avoid.
She states that Captain Cook mapped the outline of ‘‘Aotearoa’’. Not according to the charts of the time. Maori did not have a commonly used name for the entire New Zealand archipelago. Aotearoa was one traditional name for the North Island alone.
It was ‘‘New Zealand’’ or the Dutch, French or Italian equivalent that Cook mapped. Up until the 1890s, it was either New Zealand or ‘‘Nu Tirani’’.
She asks how can recognition by Maori and Pakeha as ‘‘full Treaty partners’’ be achieved?
No reference to ‘‘partner’’ or ‘‘partnership’’ is to be found in the final draft of the Treaty, or the Treaty itself. The current fad for ‘‘partnership’’ is a gross misrepresentation of history and the Treaty.
As Ms Balchin observes, ‘‘as has been demonstrated ad infinitum over the centuries, crooked politicians, manipulators, and propagandists latch on to those who are ignorant of history, as they are more easily lied to’’. Righteousness can have the same effect.
BRUCE MASON, Ranfurly
Dominion Post 2/8/19
GOOD FOR MAORI
I must be a grumpy old white man but I’m struggling to empathise with the Save Our Unique Landscape (SOUL) protesters at Ihumatao.
I understand that Pania Newton is passionate about the cause, but I’m surprised she cannot see the benefits of the Fletcher housing project, which will do more to help Maori than her plan to leave the land vacant as a reserve.
Given that Te Warena Taua supports the development, along with the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority, then the differences with the mana whenua should have been resolved long before now, and without any need for intervention from the Government.
Surely this is a project that can be good for Maori and do something, albeit small, to help alleviate the housing shortage. Or am I being too simplistic and insensitive?
MIKE JARVIS, Paraparaumu Beach
Bay of Plenty Times 2/8/19
TAURANGA HISTORY
"Ridiculous" writes Peter Dey (Letters. July 26) regarding my calling Rawiri Puhirake a warmonger (Letters, July 20).
Dey assorts that Puhirake never attacked anybody and therefore is not a warmonger.
The definition of the word warmonger is 'one who urges or attempts to stir up war'. Attacking not required.
"Reputable historians totally disagrees with me claims Dey. Perhaps he could name them so we can evaluate how reputable they are.
I'm happy to name my sources, inter alia - the pre-eminent James Cowan. Alistair Reese's history of Tauranga recently written for the Anglican Church, Gifford and Williams 'A Centennial History of Tauranga.
Dey claims that the history written into Treaty settlements support his views. Quoting from the Ngai Te Rangi deed of settlement, "Puhirake and Ngai Te Rangi issued a series of challenges to the Crown to provoke it into fighting at specific locations”. That, in my opinion, meets the definition of warmongering.
RICHARD PRINCE Welcome Bay
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers