Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 5, 2016 10:08:36 GMT 12
Northland Age 5/7/16
OUR TURN
Now that the dust has settled on the UK Brexit referendum, it is fair to say Britain's exit from the EU, 50 per cent vs 48 per cent, will undoubtedly have serious consequences for Britain's financial well-being in the future. How could the UK remain with the basket-case EU, where it contributed more than it received, immigration of refugees was virtually unrestrained with free borders and so on —all out of control, effectively?
Now let's look at New Zealand — perhaps bumbling, stuttering Prime Minister Key should look at instituting a New Zealand Exit binding referendum to see if Kiwis support his government's race-based policies, handouts, the unrestrained fabricating of past Kiwi history, the stealthy freshwater sell-out and the ill-conceived foreshore and seabed policies, plus ballooning immigration.
Winston Peters is absolutely right — immigration and separatism doesn't and won't work. I can confidently tell you, and predict that 80 per cent of Kiwis would not support Mr Key or his government's policies on this front. Question: Does Mr Key have the guts to take a binding referendum vote to stop this politically correct (the theory of picking something up by the clean end) headlong plunge into separatism? The short answer is no.
Another thought; perhaps the South Island and Stewart Island should petition to secede from Aotearoa (?) New Zealand (North Island) and create South New Zealand (Sexit)— not a had idea. Roll on 2017 general elections.
R P
Mount Maunganui
FACT AND FICTION
Re 'Damned either way' (Letters June 30), Wally Hicks says, "European influence didn't end Maori tribal warfare at all ...", centuries of tribal warfare became non-existent by approx 1845. Perhaps Mr Hicks would like to explain what he considers ended the tribal warfare if it wasn't European influence?
Mr Hicks and the 'few other Pakeha' he professes to speak for would do well to acquaint themselves with the sound material on the Kiwi Frontline site he mentions, which notes that renowned historians Paul Moon, Claudia Orange and others acknowledge the practice of daughter slaughter by Maori in the early 19th century.
In his letter, Hicks makes it clear that he supports a new written constitution. I wonder if he sees this document based on the Treaty of Waitangi, in which non Maori would potentially become second-class citizens in their own country?
Finally, does Wally consider the views of close to 80 per cent of New Zealanders who support racial equality and one rule for all, as listed on the Kiwi Frontline polls results page, to be jaundiced, crass, prejudiced and unbalanced?
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
NOT INDIGENOUS
A lot of people consider Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, which they are not.
Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for thousands of years, the Maori arrived in New Zealand about 1350AD, 400 years before Abel Tasman.
In 2010 John Key sent Pita (Peter) Sharpies to the United Nations to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, without authority of Parliament or the people of New Zealand, Sharples telling the United Nations Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people, or tangata whenua, of New Zealand.
The late Professor Ranginui Walker and Maori legend tell a completely different story. The people of the 14th century found tangata whenua (original inhabitants) already living in New Zealand. Ngapuhi chief David Rankin stated Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand, "There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived."
Chris Finlayson has stated no documents exist today to define who is indigenous to New Zealand. John Key said that the document alleged to contain the information does not exist. Pita (Peter) Sharples has said "I do not hold a document that defines the New Zealand government's definition of indigenous people."
Captain Cook, Julius von Haast and Alfred K Newman mentioned there were people here before Maori Tangata whenua is a name used to identify the fair-skinned, red-haired people. Tangata whenua is a term only applied to Maori since the 1950s. The Celts, known as the Ngati Hotu, would more than likely be the indigenous people. Other pre-Maori people were the Chinese, Waitaha, Moriori, Patupairehe.
If Maori are to claim as the indigenous people of New Zealand then they must prove this with forensic (evidence), and that their ancestors' traditions and legends were wrong.
I B
Wanganui
Taranaki Daily News 5/7/16
HORI ST ORIGINS
In response to Steve Jones's letter (Taranaki Daily News, letters, July 1): Hori St in New Plymouth is named after James Cartwright George (Hori being the Maori name for George), who sold this land for residential development. In 1869.
JC George set up a business as a builder and cabinet-maker, and in 1888 he co-founded with Newton King the Crown Dairy Company.
During his time in New Plymouth he was also a member of the New Plymouth Harbour Board and had served with the Bushrangers and the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers. At the time of his death in 1905, JC George was President of the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce.
KELVIN DAY
Manager Puke Ariki
Taranaki Daily News 1/7/16 (the above letter relates to this one)
HIGH TIME FOR A NAME CHANGE
Given the ever-increasing awareness of, and sensitivity to, all things Maori, I wonder if the district council will consider - or has ever considered - changing the name of Hori St in upper Vogeltown.
"Hori" was a common pejorative in my youth in the 1950s and 60s, predominantly for Maori but also to describe anyone considered shonky. It is still heard occasionally today among the older generation.
Surely the name is culturally inappropriate nowadays.
S J
New Plymouth
Southland Times 5/7/16
ATROCITIES
Interesting to listen to parliamentary speeches regarding an iwi settlement by the Crown and the MP stating ‘‘the Crown did inhuman acts on Maori people’’.
The truth is that prior to colonisation and for a couple of decades after the Treaty was signed, the worst atrocities on Maori was by Maori tribes who slaughtered, raped, made slaves of and cannibalised their Maori captives.
If we are to teach history in school from a Maori perspective, I hope that the developers of the curriculum read an interesting book called Stretching the Treaty.
This book unravels some of the nonsense that is the history that is put forward to justify Treaty claims.
N C
Invercargill
OUR TURN
Now that the dust has settled on the UK Brexit referendum, it is fair to say Britain's exit from the EU, 50 per cent vs 48 per cent, will undoubtedly have serious consequences for Britain's financial well-being in the future. How could the UK remain with the basket-case EU, where it contributed more than it received, immigration of refugees was virtually unrestrained with free borders and so on —all out of control, effectively?
Now let's look at New Zealand — perhaps bumbling, stuttering Prime Minister Key should look at instituting a New Zealand Exit binding referendum to see if Kiwis support his government's race-based policies, handouts, the unrestrained fabricating of past Kiwi history, the stealthy freshwater sell-out and the ill-conceived foreshore and seabed policies, plus ballooning immigration.
Winston Peters is absolutely right — immigration and separatism doesn't and won't work. I can confidently tell you, and predict that 80 per cent of Kiwis would not support Mr Key or his government's policies on this front. Question: Does Mr Key have the guts to take a binding referendum vote to stop this politically correct (the theory of picking something up by the clean end) headlong plunge into separatism? The short answer is no.
Another thought; perhaps the South Island and Stewart Island should petition to secede from Aotearoa (?) New Zealand (North Island) and create South New Zealand (Sexit)— not a had idea. Roll on 2017 general elections.
R P
Mount Maunganui
FACT AND FICTION
Re 'Damned either way' (Letters June 30), Wally Hicks says, "European influence didn't end Maori tribal warfare at all ...", centuries of tribal warfare became non-existent by approx 1845. Perhaps Mr Hicks would like to explain what he considers ended the tribal warfare if it wasn't European influence?
Mr Hicks and the 'few other Pakeha' he professes to speak for would do well to acquaint themselves with the sound material on the Kiwi Frontline site he mentions, which notes that renowned historians Paul Moon, Claudia Orange and others acknowledge the practice of daughter slaughter by Maori in the early 19th century.
In his letter, Hicks makes it clear that he supports a new written constitution. I wonder if he sees this document based on the Treaty of Waitangi, in which non Maori would potentially become second-class citizens in their own country?
Finally, does Wally consider the views of close to 80 per cent of New Zealanders who support racial equality and one rule for all, as listed on the Kiwi Frontline polls results page, to be jaundiced, crass, prejudiced and unbalanced?
GEOFFREY T PARKER
Kamo
NOT INDIGENOUS
A lot of people consider Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, which they are not.
Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for thousands of years, the Maori arrived in New Zealand about 1350AD, 400 years before Abel Tasman.
In 2010 John Key sent Pita (Peter) Sharpies to the United Nations to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, without authority of Parliament or the people of New Zealand, Sharples telling the United Nations Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people, or tangata whenua, of New Zealand.
The late Professor Ranginui Walker and Maori legend tell a completely different story. The people of the 14th century found tangata whenua (original inhabitants) already living in New Zealand. Ngapuhi chief David Rankin stated Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand, "There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived."
Chris Finlayson has stated no documents exist today to define who is indigenous to New Zealand. John Key said that the document alleged to contain the information does not exist. Pita (Peter) Sharples has said "I do not hold a document that defines the New Zealand government's definition of indigenous people."
Captain Cook, Julius von Haast and Alfred K Newman mentioned there were people here before Maori Tangata whenua is a name used to identify the fair-skinned, red-haired people. Tangata whenua is a term only applied to Maori since the 1950s. The Celts, known as the Ngati Hotu, would more than likely be the indigenous people. Other pre-Maori people were the Chinese, Waitaha, Moriori, Patupairehe.
If Maori are to claim as the indigenous people of New Zealand then they must prove this with forensic (evidence), and that their ancestors' traditions and legends were wrong.
I B
Wanganui
Taranaki Daily News 5/7/16
HORI ST ORIGINS
In response to Steve Jones's letter (Taranaki Daily News, letters, July 1): Hori St in New Plymouth is named after James Cartwright George (Hori being the Maori name for George), who sold this land for residential development. In 1869.
JC George set up a business as a builder and cabinet-maker, and in 1888 he co-founded with Newton King the Crown Dairy Company.
During his time in New Plymouth he was also a member of the New Plymouth Harbour Board and had served with the Bushrangers and the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers. At the time of his death in 1905, JC George was President of the Taranaki Chamber of Commerce.
KELVIN DAY
Manager Puke Ariki
Taranaki Daily News 1/7/16 (the above letter relates to this one)
HIGH TIME FOR A NAME CHANGE
Given the ever-increasing awareness of, and sensitivity to, all things Maori, I wonder if the district council will consider - or has ever considered - changing the name of Hori St in upper Vogeltown.
"Hori" was a common pejorative in my youth in the 1950s and 60s, predominantly for Maori but also to describe anyone considered shonky. It is still heard occasionally today among the older generation.
Surely the name is culturally inappropriate nowadays.
S J
New Plymouth
Southland Times 5/7/16
ATROCITIES
Interesting to listen to parliamentary speeches regarding an iwi settlement by the Crown and the MP stating ‘‘the Crown did inhuman acts on Maori people’’.
The truth is that prior to colonisation and for a couple of decades after the Treaty was signed, the worst atrocities on Maori was by Maori tribes who slaughtered, raped, made slaves of and cannibalised their Maori captives.
If we are to teach history in school from a Maori perspective, I hope that the developers of the curriculum read an interesting book called Stretching the Treaty.
This book unravels some of the nonsense that is the history that is put forward to justify Treaty claims.
N C
Invercargill