Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 7, 2021 10:09:38 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 6/3/21)
I wonder if Kelly Jensen (3/3/21) has another line of argument as her/his race card rant has sorry to say for him /her been well and truly discredited over and over again.
Basset is right and it is fair to say maori culture and maori language in their current form are fabricated aberrations.
However it was pleasing to see recognition of the so called ‘dominant culture’ that has built everything above the ground (except for trees which they have nurtured) in NZ, all in just 200 years. This includes all the things that provide the luxuries and wellbeing that all of us enjoy today.
This ‘dominant culture’ recognises and caters for all the many cultures in New Zealand, whereas Maori culture is self-centred. Further this ‘dominant culture’ gives malcontents the freedom of speech to vent their current anti-colonist vitriol, however this freedom of speech is being curtailed by their breed to other members of society with a different viewpoint.
Jensen laments the fine name of our country, but the fact is that the ‘advanced’ Maori culture never even had a name for the whole country until the ‘wicked white man’ transliterated Nu Tireni/Nu Tirani into the 1835 Declaration of Independence and 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Aotearoa was never a name for NZ it was dreamed up by an Englishman in the 1880s.
Following are the quotes of a few learned gentlemen who dispute Jensen’s carping about a ‘Crown/Maori partnership’.
David Round (Canterbury University law lecturer) says ‘There is no partnership’.
Interviewed on Australian television in 1990, when he was Attorney General, Mr Lange a lawyer asked: Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumb prints and 500 people? Queen Victoria was not that sort of person.
Winston Peters, a lawyer past Deputy Prime Minister and Maori himself, described the idea that Queen Victoria would have entered into partnership with some 500 chiefs, many of whom were illiterate and none of whom she had met, as “absurd”.
Former MP and Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham a lawyer is on record saying: The Treaty did not include any concept of "joint government" and continued reference to the Treaty as a "partnership" is misleading. But it certainly did not create a partnership to govern the country. That function passed to the Crown.
Retired Judge, former law lecturer at Canterbury University Anthony Willy says: A partnership does not exist because one side wishes it to. It requires that the incidents of that partnership be clearly spelled and agreed upon .... there is nothing in the Treaty document which does this. He also noted a few years ago that “Maori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into partnership with any of its subjects.
In Closing, Jensen seems to conveniently forget that in 1831 Maori chiefs begged for protection not only against themselves but primarily from the French, this protection was afforded in the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi after the chiefs who signed ceded their individual sovereignty/chieftainship, New Zealand then subsequently became a British colony, no longer just Islands at the bottom of the Pacific with a collection of warring dissident tribes, so of course English culture became the norm and unlike the regressive element in neo Maoridom today this culture was embraced by wise Maori leaders of the time who could see the benefits in adjusting to a changing modern society.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor/unpublished-letters
I wonder if Kelly Jensen (3/3/21) has another line of argument as her/his race card rant has sorry to say for him /her been well and truly discredited over and over again.
Basset is right and it is fair to say maori culture and maori language in their current form are fabricated aberrations.
However it was pleasing to see recognition of the so called ‘dominant culture’ that has built everything above the ground (except for trees which they have nurtured) in NZ, all in just 200 years. This includes all the things that provide the luxuries and wellbeing that all of us enjoy today.
This ‘dominant culture’ recognises and caters for all the many cultures in New Zealand, whereas Maori culture is self-centred. Further this ‘dominant culture’ gives malcontents the freedom of speech to vent their current anti-colonist vitriol, however this freedom of speech is being curtailed by their breed to other members of society with a different viewpoint.
Jensen laments the fine name of our country, but the fact is that the ‘advanced’ Maori culture never even had a name for the whole country until the ‘wicked white man’ transliterated Nu Tireni/Nu Tirani into the 1835 Declaration of Independence and 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Aotearoa was never a name for NZ it was dreamed up by an Englishman in the 1880s.
Following are the quotes of a few learned gentlemen who dispute Jensen’s carping about a ‘Crown/Maori partnership’.
David Round (Canterbury University law lecturer) says ‘There is no partnership’.
Interviewed on Australian television in 1990, when he was Attorney General, Mr Lange a lawyer asked: Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumb prints and 500 people? Queen Victoria was not that sort of person.
Winston Peters, a lawyer past Deputy Prime Minister and Maori himself, described the idea that Queen Victoria would have entered into partnership with some 500 chiefs, many of whom were illiterate and none of whom she had met, as “absurd”.
Former MP and Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham a lawyer is on record saying: The Treaty did not include any concept of "joint government" and continued reference to the Treaty as a "partnership" is misleading. But it certainly did not create a partnership to govern the country. That function passed to the Crown.
Retired Judge, former law lecturer at Canterbury University Anthony Willy says: A partnership does not exist because one side wishes it to. It requires that the incidents of that partnership be clearly spelled and agreed upon .... there is nothing in the Treaty document which does this. He also noted a few years ago that “Maori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into partnership with any of its subjects.
In Closing, Jensen seems to conveniently forget that in 1831 Maori chiefs begged for protection not only against themselves but primarily from the French, this protection was afforded in the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi after the chiefs who signed ceded their individual sovereignty/chieftainship, New Zealand then subsequently became a British colony, no longer just Islands at the bottom of the Pacific with a collection of warring dissident tribes, so of course English culture became the norm and unlike the regressive element in neo Maoridom today this culture was embraced by wise Maori leaders of the time who could see the benefits in adjusting to a changing modern society.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor/unpublished-letters