Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 12, 2019 5:49:18 GMT 12
Northern Advocate 12/10/19
UNBIASED AND ACCURATE NEW ZEALAND HISTORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT
Bigoted? Hitler? One eyed views? are terms/labels resorted to, as GM Tinker has done (1/10/19), when obviously rattled by facts.
I agree, New Zealand history curriculum should be as accurate and unbiased as possible, history lessons should not be about ‘what ifs’, ‘could of happened’ or the speculation rife today about what went on in the minds signatories to the treaty.
It is this ‘modern consciousness’, i.e. woolley thinking that has seen $billions transferred to tribes in questionable treaty settlements. And around 20 race-based special rights and privileges which only those of Maori descent can enjoy – apartheid. Further our entire coastline is now under tribal claims, tribes are seeking control of our freshwater resources and treatyists are advocating for undemocratic race-based appointments to local governments.
By the Treaty of Waitangi the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty to the Queen completely and for ever. By subsequent formal procedures they became her subjects. Likewise, all the people of New Zealand obtained exactly the same rights, irrespective of racial origin. Today we are all citizens of New Zealand but as we remain a monarchy we are also nominally the Queen’s subjects. Modern claims of any “partnership” between the Queen (aka “the Crown”) and any Maoris are quite frankly unfounded garbage
Since all of New Zealand became British sovereign territory in 1840, moves to reclaim any of it from rebels were totally legitimate and it is likewise false to refer to them as “invasions”. Tinker’s claim that the troops moving to suppress the Waikato rebellion were “foreign invaders” is more garbage.
There is much song and dance today amongst Maori activists about “land loss” and “land stolen”. The truth is that most of New Zealand land was eagerly sold by Maori chiefs. Today less than 4% remains confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been forewarned – a practice fully in accord with traditional Maori practice or “tikanga”. 5.6% remains under “native title” and of course considerable amounts of freehold land are held by owners with some Maori ancestry. Tinker’s allusion to Hitler’s march into Poland for comparison is about as low as it gets.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
Waikato Times 12/10/19
RACE RELATIONS
The Waikato Times recently reported a speech given by Dr Arama Rata from Waikato University to a forum discussing the future of Hamilton.
Her comments were very inflammatory, unfortunate and certainly made a dent in the future of race relations.
Firstly, Captain James Cook was a very humble person who trained to be a seaman in the small port of Whitby, England.
Secondly, with his three voyages to the South Pacific, he became recognised as one of the greatest explorers of all time.
For Rata to accuse Cook of having the aim of eliminating Maori, who had also migrated to New Zealand, is plain disgusting and obviously untrue.
Reading Rata's inflammatory statements, one could reasonably wonder, where Maori would be today in the unlikely event of Europeans and Asians not migrating to New Zealand.
Life has never been perfect, but through ongoing intermarriage, education, Treaty settlement, including the first written Maori language, Dr Rata is now able to pontificate from her ivory tower.
Recently there has been a push to rewrite New Zealand History.
No doubt Dr Rata would be keen to play a leading role, if this project proceeds, which would obviously be very unfortunate.
In my view. the thoroughly researched Penguin History of New Zealand book by Michael King, should be the basis for any discussion as an example of rewriting our history.
I am old enough to have witnessed some of the incredible achievements of Princess Te Puea, as a revered leader of Tainui, which she made happen over a period of 40 years.
It is little wonder she was regarded as probably the most influential woman in our political history. Sadly, because of her Treaty Settlement and her conciliatory comments regarding settling Tainui's grievances "moving forward as one people", soon after World War II she has been quietly relegated to obscurity.
Regarding the comments Rata made about immigrants from Asian countries, I believe that the majority of Kiwis welcome their presence as they give greater depth and colour to our culture plus they have a very good work ethic.
ROD WISE, Hamilton
RACE RELATIONS 2
Tom O'Connor, (Waikato Times, October 5) rightly takes to task Dr Arama Rata, Waikato University senior research fellow, for her hysterical outburst over the recent arrival of the replica of Captain Cook's ship. Endeavour, to New Zealand shores. Calling it a "death ship" probably skirts the edges of hate speech. The far right has its equivalent here in the far left.
If this is what passes for scholarship in our institutions of higher learning today, then it represents a serious degeneration in academic standards. Keep this person and their warped political polemic well away from the yet to be revised school history syllabus.
If anyone wants a balanced view of reality regarding early contact between Maori and Cook, go no further than Graeme Lay's excellent, fact-based analysis presented in the recent New Zealand Listener, (October 12).
I am waiting for the day when the murderers of James Cook and those Maori who murdered, dismembered and ate 10 of his crew are going to offer an apology to the sailors' descendants. Same goes for the genocide and enslavement handed out to the peace loving Moriori by Taranaki Maori in 1835 at the Chathams. What are the chances?
PETER DORNAUF, Hamilton
RACE RELATIONS 3
The various iwi around Gisborne have not been happy about Cook and his ship's first landfall in New Zealand given that nine of their own were killed in the encounter. But we keep hearing that Cook himself killed these men, not some of his crew. It is not drawing much of a bow to suggest that it was primarily a clash of cultures. This would have been the first time these Englishmen had ever been challenged by the locals and they reacted as you might expect, by defending themselves in the only way they knew how. Cook, himself, is on record as being unhappy with the outcome, yet we still defile his name as if he was the only one with a gun.
On the other hand should we not consider that for nearly two decades we, and quite possibly some members of the Gisborne iwi, have been officially killing the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq when they challenge us. Are we any better than Cook's men?
GEOFF ORCHARD, Ohaupo
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 11/10/19
NGATI POROU AND COOK
What a shocking indictment of international relations it is when a foreign government feels obligated, for political appeasement, to express national guilt for a minor incident that occurred 250 years ago to the part-descendants of a tribal culture that was known for ritual killings, infanticide, slavery, the slaughter of whole tribes defeated in battle and cannibalism.
Nine killed or wounded. Internecine battles between tribes often saw hundreds killed and eaten or enslaved.
This state of affairs becomes more bizarre when those claiming offence are in all cases part-descendants of the colonists, those people that they vilify.
If Cook’s reportage had not encouraged the advent of European settlers the warring tribes would have eventually exterminated each other.
When is sanity going to return to our community and avaricious racial separatists going to cease their illogical demands?
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
UNBIASED AND ACCURATE NEW ZEALAND HISTORY SHOULD BE TAUGHT
Bigoted? Hitler? One eyed views? are terms/labels resorted to, as GM Tinker has done (1/10/19), when obviously rattled by facts.
I agree, New Zealand history curriculum should be as accurate and unbiased as possible, history lessons should not be about ‘what ifs’, ‘could of happened’ or the speculation rife today about what went on in the minds signatories to the treaty.
It is this ‘modern consciousness’, i.e. woolley thinking that has seen $billions transferred to tribes in questionable treaty settlements. And around 20 race-based special rights and privileges which only those of Maori descent can enjoy – apartheid. Further our entire coastline is now under tribal claims, tribes are seeking control of our freshwater resources and treatyists are advocating for undemocratic race-based appointments to local governments.
By the Treaty of Waitangi the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty to the Queen completely and for ever. By subsequent formal procedures they became her subjects. Likewise, all the people of New Zealand obtained exactly the same rights, irrespective of racial origin. Today we are all citizens of New Zealand but as we remain a monarchy we are also nominally the Queen’s subjects. Modern claims of any “partnership” between the Queen (aka “the Crown”) and any Maoris are quite frankly unfounded garbage
Since all of New Zealand became British sovereign territory in 1840, moves to reclaim any of it from rebels were totally legitimate and it is likewise false to refer to them as “invasions”. Tinker’s claim that the troops moving to suppress the Waikato rebellion were “foreign invaders” is more garbage.
There is much song and dance today amongst Maori activists about “land loss” and “land stolen”. The truth is that most of New Zealand land was eagerly sold by Maori chiefs. Today less than 4% remains confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been forewarned – a practice fully in accord with traditional Maori practice or “tikanga”. 5.6% remains under “native title” and of course considerable amounts of freehold land are held by owners with some Maori ancestry. Tinker’s allusion to Hitler’s march into Poland for comparison is about as low as it gets.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
Waikato Times 12/10/19
RACE RELATIONS
The Waikato Times recently reported a speech given by Dr Arama Rata from Waikato University to a forum discussing the future of Hamilton.
Her comments were very inflammatory, unfortunate and certainly made a dent in the future of race relations.
Firstly, Captain James Cook was a very humble person who trained to be a seaman in the small port of Whitby, England.
Secondly, with his three voyages to the South Pacific, he became recognised as one of the greatest explorers of all time.
For Rata to accuse Cook of having the aim of eliminating Maori, who had also migrated to New Zealand, is plain disgusting and obviously untrue.
Reading Rata's inflammatory statements, one could reasonably wonder, where Maori would be today in the unlikely event of Europeans and Asians not migrating to New Zealand.
Life has never been perfect, but through ongoing intermarriage, education, Treaty settlement, including the first written Maori language, Dr Rata is now able to pontificate from her ivory tower.
Recently there has been a push to rewrite New Zealand History.
No doubt Dr Rata would be keen to play a leading role, if this project proceeds, which would obviously be very unfortunate.
In my view. the thoroughly researched Penguin History of New Zealand book by Michael King, should be the basis for any discussion as an example of rewriting our history.
I am old enough to have witnessed some of the incredible achievements of Princess Te Puea, as a revered leader of Tainui, which she made happen over a period of 40 years.
It is little wonder she was regarded as probably the most influential woman in our political history. Sadly, because of her Treaty Settlement and her conciliatory comments regarding settling Tainui's grievances "moving forward as one people", soon after World War II she has been quietly relegated to obscurity.
Regarding the comments Rata made about immigrants from Asian countries, I believe that the majority of Kiwis welcome their presence as they give greater depth and colour to our culture plus they have a very good work ethic.
ROD WISE, Hamilton
RACE RELATIONS 2
Tom O'Connor, (Waikato Times, October 5) rightly takes to task Dr Arama Rata, Waikato University senior research fellow, for her hysterical outburst over the recent arrival of the replica of Captain Cook's ship. Endeavour, to New Zealand shores. Calling it a "death ship" probably skirts the edges of hate speech. The far right has its equivalent here in the far left.
If this is what passes for scholarship in our institutions of higher learning today, then it represents a serious degeneration in academic standards. Keep this person and their warped political polemic well away from the yet to be revised school history syllabus.
If anyone wants a balanced view of reality regarding early contact between Maori and Cook, go no further than Graeme Lay's excellent, fact-based analysis presented in the recent New Zealand Listener, (October 12).
I am waiting for the day when the murderers of James Cook and those Maori who murdered, dismembered and ate 10 of his crew are going to offer an apology to the sailors' descendants. Same goes for the genocide and enslavement handed out to the peace loving Moriori by Taranaki Maori in 1835 at the Chathams. What are the chances?
PETER DORNAUF, Hamilton
RACE RELATIONS 3
The various iwi around Gisborne have not been happy about Cook and his ship's first landfall in New Zealand given that nine of their own were killed in the encounter. But we keep hearing that Cook himself killed these men, not some of his crew. It is not drawing much of a bow to suggest that it was primarily a clash of cultures. This would have been the first time these Englishmen had ever been challenged by the locals and they reacted as you might expect, by defending themselves in the only way they knew how. Cook, himself, is on record as being unhappy with the outcome, yet we still defile his name as if he was the only one with a gun.
On the other hand should we not consider that for nearly two decades we, and quite possibly some members of the Gisborne iwi, have been officially killing the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq when they challenge us. Are we any better than Cook's men?
GEOFF ORCHARD, Ohaupo
Weekend Sun / Sunlive 11/10/19
NGATI POROU AND COOK
What a shocking indictment of international relations it is when a foreign government feels obligated, for political appeasement, to express national guilt for a minor incident that occurred 250 years ago to the part-descendants of a tribal culture that was known for ritual killings, infanticide, slavery, the slaughter of whole tribes defeated in battle and cannibalism.
Nine killed or wounded. Internecine battles between tribes often saw hundreds killed and eaten or enslaved.
This state of affairs becomes more bizarre when those claiming offence are in all cases part-descendants of the colonists, those people that they vilify.
If Cook’s reportage had not encouraged the advent of European settlers the warring tribes would have eventually exterminated each other.
When is sanity going to return to our community and avaricious racial separatists going to cease their illogical demands?
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers