Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 9, 2016 18:59:39 GMT 12
Kapiti News 8/6/16
EXACT SCIENCE
Like Reg Fowles [letters May 18] I grew up in an era when history was factual and not manufactured as it is today. It seems that modern scholars will attempt to reach a conclusion that has been presented to them by their patrons. I call this 'Reverse Pyramid Ideology' [RPI]. It is base over apex and may easily topple if just one tiny stone becomes dislodged. If they are not careful, these latter day scholars may one day discover what it is that they seek so passionately.
One of our first ethnologists was a gentleman by the name of Percy Smith. Mr Smith was by training and occupation a surveyor responsible for some large triangulations in our young country. Surveying by its very nature is an exact science so his mind was a very neat and tidy thing — an exact piece of equipment, to be precise. Mr Smith travelled extensively around the country on various surveying expeditions and in addition to these official duties he would record information about the traditional history and culture of the Maori people, with whom he would come in contact with and who would relate their local history to him and he would dutifully record it.
This was used by Mr Smith to fulfil the basis of his subsequent career as a Polynesian scholar, an occupation he pursued full-time upon retiring as a surveyor. He was co-founder of the Polynesian Society and it's official journal, publishing ethnographic observations in a most scholarly manner. During his 30-year involvement with the society he published a large number of articles that were well received by the intellegensia of the time. He also received prizes for his research into Polynesian ethnology.
The latter day 'RPI' scholars now say that his work on Maori is unreliable. Percy Smith was a man who practised an exact science, his entire working life and his work is being branded as unreliable! What does that say about his triangulations? The point is that you cannot alter his mathematics, they are precisely exact. But history can easily be altered to suit old arguments and prejudices.
It is obvious that our history has been rewritten by people with hidden agendas — but that's ok, as it will, at some time in the future, be corrected by scholars with no axe to grind.
G C
Te Horo Beach
SOVEREIGNTY CHALLENGE
Local tribe Ngati Raukawa announced in the Otaki Mail. May 2016 edition that they are now going to challenge the Crown's sovereignty.
They believe they have the right to live outside New Zealand law and replace it with their own and so determine their own fate. Professor Winiata said "When Maori signed the treaty 176 years ago the rangatira delegated kawanatanga to the Crown —limited rights to govern. They did not give up their tino rangatiratanga or their mana as rangatira". Just so readers are aware, it is the taxpayers who pay for tribes to research treaty claims, pay biased historians and all other expenses to put claims before the equally biased Waitangi Tribunal. Whether they win or lose one presumes we will be up for the same costs, probably millions, for each and every other tribe in the country to do the same.
Apart from splitting the country in two this move is puzzling on many levels. Firstly, The Treaty of Waitangi is a simple document, in Article First the Chiefs of New Zealand ceded sovereignty to the Queen forever. In Article Second all the people of New Zealand were guaranteed property rights and in Article Third in return for the cessation of Sovereignty all New Zealanders will be protected and receive equal rights. Since when does cede sovereignty forever, not mean cede sovereignty forever? Secondly, "rangatiratanga" is a neogilsm, a word made up by the translator to express a term not in the native language, it is used to translate the word "possessions" used in the English draft. There are no words in the Article Second draft that could possibly mean, "Chiefly authority".
Thirdly, "Kawanatanga" is also a neogilsm and was used to translate the term "Governor". We know this as the English draft of the treaty resides in the New Zealand Archives and although largely hidden we can plainly see the intent of the treaty by simply reading the English draft.
The whole sovereignty argument of Ngati Raukawa hinges on them guessing that the natives did not have a clue what was being said to them in 1840. They can say what they like in 2016 but they cannot change the words of the Chiefs who spoke on the 5th of February 1840 at Waitangi. You be the judge: Warerahi said: "Yes! What else? Stay, sit; if not, what? Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor. What! Turn him away! Say to this man of the Queen, go back! No, no." Tareha said: "No Governor for me — for us native men. We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! Thou high and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low".
Obviously they preferred the peace the treaty would bring and clearly understood what a governor was in 1840. I give them more credit than Ngati Raukawa does. The biggest problems facing Maori today are surely poverty, child abuse and incarceration. If Ngati Raukawa put as much time and effort into reducing these steadily worsening statistics as they do into apartheid systems of law and treaty claims we would all be better off.
ANDY OAKLEY
Raumati Beach
Sunlive 9/6/16
HONEST PRESENTATION OF HISTORY
What must be of public concern is the selective and slanted version of our history given by nationally-accepted historians. A recent case was that of Dame Anne Salmond, who suggested the pre-European Maori were gentle and loving fathers.
This was based simply on the observance of families and did not in any way mention inter-tribal aggression or the repression of women, and slaves in the pa or the regular practice of female infanticide. Logically one might ask ‘Would Maori be likely to display any other behaviour in the presence of European visitors'? One would have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.
Another example of blatant selectivity, was shown by the late Michael King when in his volume, ‘The History of New Zealand', he made no mention of Maori cannibalism which was endemic to all tribes, whether for post-battle rituals or sustenance. When questioned on his omission he suggested the practice was so infrequent as to be not worthy of noting. This from a historian?
It is this sort of reporting that treaty revisionists thrive on.
B J
Omokoroa.
MAORI SEATS WON'T BE SCRAPPED
Re: ‘No room for race-based seats on our council' (The Weekend Sun, May 27).
R Paterson's letter correctly states the majority view as to Maori local body representation.
It shouldn't be a gift, but earned through the normal democratic process. Stand...and be elected or not.
He also mentions abolishing the Maori parliamentary seats is ‘technically still on National's bucket list'. In that he is wrong.
On August 22, 2014, in response to my query as to when they would be doing that, Tauranga MP Simon Bridges replied (in part): “it [National] would not seek to remove the Maori seats without the consent of the Maori people”. How stupid and pointless is that kind of an election pledge? On that basis it will never happen.
Wouldn't it be a good idea if the rest of us were asked if we consented to paying tax? If we didn't, we are exempt!
G A
Tauranga.
EXACT SCIENCE
Like Reg Fowles [letters May 18] I grew up in an era when history was factual and not manufactured as it is today. It seems that modern scholars will attempt to reach a conclusion that has been presented to them by their patrons. I call this 'Reverse Pyramid Ideology' [RPI]. It is base over apex and may easily topple if just one tiny stone becomes dislodged. If they are not careful, these latter day scholars may one day discover what it is that they seek so passionately.
One of our first ethnologists was a gentleman by the name of Percy Smith. Mr Smith was by training and occupation a surveyor responsible for some large triangulations in our young country. Surveying by its very nature is an exact science so his mind was a very neat and tidy thing — an exact piece of equipment, to be precise. Mr Smith travelled extensively around the country on various surveying expeditions and in addition to these official duties he would record information about the traditional history and culture of the Maori people, with whom he would come in contact with and who would relate their local history to him and he would dutifully record it.
This was used by Mr Smith to fulfil the basis of his subsequent career as a Polynesian scholar, an occupation he pursued full-time upon retiring as a surveyor. He was co-founder of the Polynesian Society and it's official journal, publishing ethnographic observations in a most scholarly manner. During his 30-year involvement with the society he published a large number of articles that were well received by the intellegensia of the time. He also received prizes for his research into Polynesian ethnology.
The latter day 'RPI' scholars now say that his work on Maori is unreliable. Percy Smith was a man who practised an exact science, his entire working life and his work is being branded as unreliable! What does that say about his triangulations? The point is that you cannot alter his mathematics, they are precisely exact. But history can easily be altered to suit old arguments and prejudices.
It is obvious that our history has been rewritten by people with hidden agendas — but that's ok, as it will, at some time in the future, be corrected by scholars with no axe to grind.
G C
Te Horo Beach
SOVEREIGNTY CHALLENGE
Local tribe Ngati Raukawa announced in the Otaki Mail. May 2016 edition that they are now going to challenge the Crown's sovereignty.
They believe they have the right to live outside New Zealand law and replace it with their own and so determine their own fate. Professor Winiata said "When Maori signed the treaty 176 years ago the rangatira delegated kawanatanga to the Crown —limited rights to govern. They did not give up their tino rangatiratanga or their mana as rangatira". Just so readers are aware, it is the taxpayers who pay for tribes to research treaty claims, pay biased historians and all other expenses to put claims before the equally biased Waitangi Tribunal. Whether they win or lose one presumes we will be up for the same costs, probably millions, for each and every other tribe in the country to do the same.
Apart from splitting the country in two this move is puzzling on many levels. Firstly, The Treaty of Waitangi is a simple document, in Article First the Chiefs of New Zealand ceded sovereignty to the Queen forever. In Article Second all the people of New Zealand were guaranteed property rights and in Article Third in return for the cessation of Sovereignty all New Zealanders will be protected and receive equal rights. Since when does cede sovereignty forever, not mean cede sovereignty forever? Secondly, "rangatiratanga" is a neogilsm, a word made up by the translator to express a term not in the native language, it is used to translate the word "possessions" used in the English draft. There are no words in the Article Second draft that could possibly mean, "Chiefly authority".
Thirdly, "Kawanatanga" is also a neogilsm and was used to translate the term "Governor". We know this as the English draft of the treaty resides in the New Zealand Archives and although largely hidden we can plainly see the intent of the treaty by simply reading the English draft.
The whole sovereignty argument of Ngati Raukawa hinges on them guessing that the natives did not have a clue what was being said to them in 1840. They can say what they like in 2016 but they cannot change the words of the Chiefs who spoke on the 5th of February 1840 at Waitangi. You be the judge: Warerahi said: "Yes! What else? Stay, sit; if not, what? Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor. What! Turn him away! Say to this man of the Queen, go back! No, no." Tareha said: "No Governor for me — for us native men. We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! Thou high and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low".
Obviously they preferred the peace the treaty would bring and clearly understood what a governor was in 1840. I give them more credit than Ngati Raukawa does. The biggest problems facing Maori today are surely poverty, child abuse and incarceration. If Ngati Raukawa put as much time and effort into reducing these steadily worsening statistics as they do into apartheid systems of law and treaty claims we would all be better off.
ANDY OAKLEY
Raumati Beach
Sunlive 9/6/16
HONEST PRESENTATION OF HISTORY
What must be of public concern is the selective and slanted version of our history given by nationally-accepted historians. A recent case was that of Dame Anne Salmond, who suggested the pre-European Maori were gentle and loving fathers.
This was based simply on the observance of families and did not in any way mention inter-tribal aggression or the repression of women, and slaves in the pa or the regular practice of female infanticide. Logically one might ask ‘Would Maori be likely to display any other behaviour in the presence of European visitors'? One would have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.
Another example of blatant selectivity, was shown by the late Michael King when in his volume, ‘The History of New Zealand', he made no mention of Maori cannibalism which was endemic to all tribes, whether for post-battle rituals or sustenance. When questioned on his omission he suggested the practice was so infrequent as to be not worthy of noting. This from a historian?
It is this sort of reporting that treaty revisionists thrive on.
B J
Omokoroa.
MAORI SEATS WON'T BE SCRAPPED
Re: ‘No room for race-based seats on our council' (The Weekend Sun, May 27).
R Paterson's letter correctly states the majority view as to Maori local body representation.
It shouldn't be a gift, but earned through the normal democratic process. Stand...and be elected or not.
He also mentions abolishing the Maori parliamentary seats is ‘technically still on National's bucket list'. In that he is wrong.
On August 22, 2014, in response to my query as to when they would be doing that, Tauranga MP Simon Bridges replied (in part): “it [National] would not seek to remove the Maori seats without the consent of the Maori people”. How stupid and pointless is that kind of an election pledge? On that basis it will never happen.
Wouldn't it be a good idea if the rest of us were asked if we consented to paying tax? If we didn't, we are exempt!
G A
Tauranga.