Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jun 16, 2016 9:37:25 GMT 12
Northland Age 16/6/16
ANOTHER SWARM
Once again my recent letters have stirred up a small swarm of wasps, gadflies and other nasties KTJ Howearth's "know - all" is a typical response of the ignorant to the well-informed.
I accept that the northern tribes did not have Te Rauparaha's taste for the flesh of unborn infants, but consider this. On September 5,1821, some 2000 Ngapuhi laid siege to Mauinaina pa at Tamaki, and when it fell some 2000 warriors, as well as women and children, were killed. Probably, in this one action, there were more deaths than in all the tribal rebellions of the early colonial period which the micro-Maori Party wants to commemorate under the bogus name of 'Land Wars'. Clearly the flesh of their victims was much to the taste of the Ngapuhi, who stayed on the battlefield, feasting on it until driven off by the stench of decaying bodies. This must be the 'tikanga' that Anahera Herbert-Graves keeps waffling on about.
Nobody claims that life in Britain in bygone times was perfect, but people there have got over it.
As for his claim that "they ... sell us off to the highest bidder," consider this. In a case submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal, and found by careful analysis to be fraudulent, Ngai Tahu were richly rewarded in their fifth "full and final settlement" with cash, real estate and other assets. In November 2010 they sold the freehold of Rakanui Station, south of Kaikoura, to Margaret Hyde, an American citizen. Next year they sold 18,252 hectares of freehold land in the South Island to a Swiss company for $22,8813,88& So be careful, KTJ Howearth, whom you accuse of what. In fact, many of the chiefs almost fell over themselves in their eagerness to sell land, so much so that Hobson had to take vigorous steps to protect them. The whole South Island had been sold before 1840, showing how cheaply they valued it. It will have been much the same in the North. This is the "land loss" Dame Whina hikoied about and now we have NCEA presenting false information about, it to our school children — nothing but political propaganda.
The agreement known as the Treaty of Waitangi was a done deal in 1840, by which the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever, all Maoris became British subjects, and the property rights of all the people of New Zealand were assured. This did not stop some chiefs from keeping Maori slaves as late as the 1860s. They and those tribes who chose to rebel against their Queen flagrantly dishonoured the Treaty.
Modern attempts to distort the meaning of the Treaty's words and they are many— are yet more flagrant dishonesty.
And just tell me, KTJ Howearth, if you are not a descendant of immigrants, just what are you? I too am a man of this land, whatever name you care to use.
As for Owen Aotearoa Lewis, if he wants to spot a racist, looking in the mirror would be a good place to start.
Then we have Waihoroi Shortland, reported in the Northern Advocate, also going o n about the 'Land Wars' and listing a few of the skirmishes in the Ngapuhi rebellion. That was a Sunday school squabble by comparison with the butchery of Maoris by Maoris a mere 20 years earlier, which, it appears, he has conveniently forgotten. Read Heke's War, by Rev R Burrows, an eye-witness, to find out.
It is high time for accurate accounts of New Zealand's history to be presented and for those with highly selective memories to start improving their minds.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
CHERRY-PICKING
It is galling how elite Maori cherry-pick and reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi to further their fortunes and control of New Zealand.
The raciaIly biased Waitangi Tribunal say that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty, and yet in Article 1 it dearly specifies they were 'ceding sovereignty to the Queen', which the chiefs accepted by signing.
In a recent Waatea 5th Estate debate, Hone Harawira (Ngapuhi) appeared to accept the Treaty by using the word 'taonga' in Article 2 to support his argument in support of the spurious Maori claim for our country's fresh water.
The definition of 'taonga' can range from anything between personal property/possession in 1840 to the sky's the limit 'treasure' in 2016.
However, the choice of definition does not matter, because whatever it may be, it was guaranteed to all the people of New Zealand, not just to the Maori signees or their opportunist descendants of mixed heritage.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
ANOTHER SWARM
Once again my recent letters have stirred up a small swarm of wasps, gadflies and other nasties KTJ Howearth's "know - all" is a typical response of the ignorant to the well-informed.
I accept that the northern tribes did not have Te Rauparaha's taste for the flesh of unborn infants, but consider this. On September 5,1821, some 2000 Ngapuhi laid siege to Mauinaina pa at Tamaki, and when it fell some 2000 warriors, as well as women and children, were killed. Probably, in this one action, there were more deaths than in all the tribal rebellions of the early colonial period which the micro-Maori Party wants to commemorate under the bogus name of 'Land Wars'. Clearly the flesh of their victims was much to the taste of the Ngapuhi, who stayed on the battlefield, feasting on it until driven off by the stench of decaying bodies. This must be the 'tikanga' that Anahera Herbert-Graves keeps waffling on about.
Nobody claims that life in Britain in bygone times was perfect, but people there have got over it.
As for his claim that "they ... sell us off to the highest bidder," consider this. In a case submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal, and found by careful analysis to be fraudulent, Ngai Tahu were richly rewarded in their fifth "full and final settlement" with cash, real estate and other assets. In November 2010 they sold the freehold of Rakanui Station, south of Kaikoura, to Margaret Hyde, an American citizen. Next year they sold 18,252 hectares of freehold land in the South Island to a Swiss company for $22,8813,88& So be careful, KTJ Howearth, whom you accuse of what. In fact, many of the chiefs almost fell over themselves in their eagerness to sell land, so much so that Hobson had to take vigorous steps to protect them. The whole South Island had been sold before 1840, showing how cheaply they valued it. It will have been much the same in the North. This is the "land loss" Dame Whina hikoied about and now we have NCEA presenting false information about, it to our school children — nothing but political propaganda.
The agreement known as the Treaty of Waitangi was a done deal in 1840, by which the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever, all Maoris became British subjects, and the property rights of all the people of New Zealand were assured. This did not stop some chiefs from keeping Maori slaves as late as the 1860s. They and those tribes who chose to rebel against their Queen flagrantly dishonoured the Treaty.
Modern attempts to distort the meaning of the Treaty's words and they are many— are yet more flagrant dishonesty.
And just tell me, KTJ Howearth, if you are not a descendant of immigrants, just what are you? I too am a man of this land, whatever name you care to use.
As for Owen Aotearoa Lewis, if he wants to spot a racist, looking in the mirror would be a good place to start.
Then we have Waihoroi Shortland, reported in the Northern Advocate, also going o n about the 'Land Wars' and listing a few of the skirmishes in the Ngapuhi rebellion. That was a Sunday school squabble by comparison with the butchery of Maoris by Maoris a mere 20 years earlier, which, it appears, he has conveniently forgotten. Read Heke's War, by Rev R Burrows, an eye-witness, to find out.
It is high time for accurate accounts of New Zealand's history to be presented and for those with highly selective memories to start improving their minds.
BRUCE MOON
Nelson
CHERRY-PICKING
It is galling how elite Maori cherry-pick and reinterpret the Treaty of Waitangi to further their fortunes and control of New Zealand.
The raciaIly biased Waitangi Tribunal say that Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty, and yet in Article 1 it dearly specifies they were 'ceding sovereignty to the Queen', which the chiefs accepted by signing.
In a recent Waatea 5th Estate debate, Hone Harawira (Ngapuhi) appeared to accept the Treaty by using the word 'taonga' in Article 2 to support his argument in support of the spurious Maori claim for our country's fresh water.
The definition of 'taonga' can range from anything between personal property/possession in 1840 to the sky's the limit 'treasure' in 2016.
However, the choice of definition does not matter, because whatever it may be, it was guaranteed to all the people of New Zealand, not just to the Maori signees or their opportunist descendants of mixed heritage.
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo