Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 30, 2021 12:43:32 GMT 12
Bruce Moon: TALL TALES VS TRUE HISTORY
On 9 July 2021, stuff newspaper the “Waikato Times” comes up with a headline: “Rangiriri Pā trenches where Māori fought British invasion of Waikato to be restored”.
And spokesman Brad Totorewa chips in with “We’re still in grievance mode. But we know sharing our narratives of the invasion of our people will transform and enhance the thinking of all New Zealanders.”
Now since the Waikato had been sovereign British territory for more than twenty years by all due processes of law, that is a bit curious, is it not? No country “invades” its own territory, but if, as in this case, it is under the control of a rebel faction, then the legitimate government has every right to take action to recover it. And this is what Governor Grey did, his patience exhausted by the continued defiance of all his attempts to resolve the issues, so well described by John Robinson in “The Kingite Rebellion”.
And it does not hurt to remind ourselves that at an early stage, the Waikato tribes had made advanced plans to attack Auckland, slaughtering all the citizens except those whose doors had been marked clandestinely with a white cross, the date for this invasion to be 1st September 1861.[ii]
So talking of a “British invasion” may be seen for what it is: a flagrant bit of political propaganda. If “the thinking of all New Zealanders” is to be transformed we had better look elsewhere than to Totorewa and his like who are, we note, still in “grievance mode” 158 years later!.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/bruce-moon-tall-tales-vs-true-history.html
Roger Childs: NEW ZEALAND’S GROWING APARTHEID
The original apartheid
The policy of apartheid (an Afrikaans word meaning “apartness” or “separation”) became official in South Africa with the election of the Nationalist Party to power in 1948. However polices in the country, based along racial lines, dated back to the early 20th century. The successive governments of the Union of South Africa passed many laws giving preference to the white minority – under 20% of the population – and discriminating against other groupings – Blacks, Asians and Coloureds. However from 1948 onwards apartheid was fine-tuned to base life in South Africa on the principles of “separate development”.
The Population Registration Act was in Prime Minister Daniel Malan’s words the basis for the whole policy of apartheid. Fundamentally people were classified by race/ethnicity. However, the legislation that followed essentially divided the people into two broad categories - WHITES and NON-WHITES. These laws separated the groups in the use of amenities, marriage and sexual relations, where people could live, go to work or school etc.. Historian David Harrison in his book The White Tribe of Africa observed that apartheid was designed to enforce separation in every sphere of life from buses to bed. The bottom line was to keep the minority whites in firm control of government and the economy.
Strengthening the separation
Successive South African administrations continued adding bricks to the apartheid wall, such as the -
* Native Resettlement Act
* Bantu Education Act
* Native Laws Amendment Act
* Extension of Universities Education Act
* Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act
* The Native Labour Act
* Native Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act.
Apartheid would last until 1990 when President F W de Klerk announced the abandonment of the policy. In 1994, in its first democratic election ever, the African National Congress swept to power and Nelson Mandela became president.
New Zealand’s road to apartheid – ignoring Treaty realities
Our brand of apartheid is both more subtle and more blatant. Most of the public are probably unaware that there are more than 100 piece of legislation making special provision for Maori rights and culture........
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/roger-childs-new-zealands-growing.html
Tony Sayers: BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU STICK YOUR MOKO
I have just read about the Maori outrage over the usage of a cartoon figure decorated with a moko (tattoo) for advertising a Covid-19 vaccination programme, that was commissioned by a Te Tiriti Joint Governance Group, comprised of the Bay of Plenty District Health Board and Te Rūnanga Hauora Māori o te Moana a Toi. {1], [5].
The depiction of a virus decorated with tā moko has offended a considerable number of Maori.
Labour List MP, Tamati Coffey has dubbed this illustration as being racist [2].
In New Zealand, (Oops, Aotearoa), the bulk of accusations made in the news media about incidents of racism appear to be of Maori accusing Pakehas of racism. To date, where there have been incidents of racism by Maori towards pakeha, they just do not receive any publicity, consequently the public become conditioned to the idea that only Pakeha can be racist.
With this particular news report, anyone reading about the offence caused to Maori from a depiction of a Covid virus decorated with a tattoo getting the boot, will assume that it is those pesky pakehas again.
Already, I am overcome with ‘white guilt’.
I feel the need to go and flagellate myself with a piece of barbed wire.
But hang on!
Before I search for the band-aids, perhaps I should take a look at this through my euro-centric lens.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/tony-sayers-be-careful-where-you-stick.html
THE PRIME MINISTER WON’T ANSWER BECAUSE SHE CAN’T – Don Brash
In recent years, the Ardern Government has gone heavily over-board with the notion that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between Maori New Zealanders and the rest of us. It now appears to be an absolute requirement of those who would make progress under this Government to sign up to this view of our constitution. As an example, all those in the media who seek financial support from the Government’s $55 million media slush fund must formally endorse the idea that the Treaty created a “partnership”.
Given that I myself can see not the slightest justification for the “Treaty as partnership”, I decided to write to the Prime Minister to ask her to explain her view. On 19 June 2021, I sent her the following email (which appeared on this blog on 21 June):
Prime Minister,
Again and again, you and your Ministers refer to the “partnership” created by the Treaty of Waitangi. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain to me (and to the many other New Zealanders who would be interested in your answer) where you found reference to “partnership”, or any synonym of “partnership”, in any version of the Treaty.
While there have been various attempts in recent decades to argue that the chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 really didn’t cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria - despite the speeches made at the time and subsequently at a large conference of chiefs in Kohimarama in 1860 - there can be no doubt what the actual words of the Treaty provided.
I understand from Dr Michael Bassett (a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for a decade, a highly regarded New Zealand historian, and of course a long-time Labour Member of Parliament) that when he was on the Tribunal the translation of the Treaty which was generally accepted was that by Sir Hugh Kawharu. Sir Hugh translated the three clauses of the Treaty thus:
“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”
As you can see, there is not the slightest reference to a “partnership”, and leading Labour politicians such as David Lange frequently ridiculed the very idea that Queen Victoria would have been willing to enter into a partnership with 500 chiefs, none of whom she had even met.
On the contrary, what the Treaty guaranteed in Article III was a guarantee of “the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England”.
Surely no other interpretation of the Treaty is consistent with democracy and it would accordingly be reassuring if you were to make it absolutely clear that your Government will not sanction any policy which gives a preference to any New Zealander on the basis of their having a Maori ancestor.
Yours sincerely,
Don Brash
Having heard nothing from the Prime Minister’s office by 28 June, I phoned her office and spoke to one of her senior staff. He was very cordial, apologised that I had not yet had an answer to my email, and said that I would get a reply shortly. Sure enough, I received an email from one Warren Howe in the Office of the Prime Minister some 10 days later, on 7 July.
Dear Don,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge your email of 19 June 2021. Please be assured your comments have been noted.
As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Maori Crown Relations, Hon Kelvin Davis, your email has been forwarded to the Minister’s office for consideration.
Thank you for writing, and take care.
Best wishes
Warren Howe
Office of the Prime Minister
And on 8 July, I sent this reply:
Dear Warren,
With respect, I wrote to the Prime Minister deliberately, not to the Minister for Maori Crown Relations, because she is the Prime Minister, it is she who largely determines the culture and policy of the Government, and it is she who frequently refers to the “partnership” created by the Treaty of Waitangi.
I have to assume that she believes that a “partnership” was created by the Treaty and I was asking her why she believes that, despite there being not the slightest shred of evidence of that in the Treaty (in either language), in the speeches given at the time of the signing, or in the speeches given on many subsequent occasions, such as the gathering of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.
The idea of a “partnership” between those with a Maori ancestor and the rest of us has, as I mentioned in my earlier email, been ridiculed not only by prominent Labour Party Leaders such as David Lange but by legal scholars who say that it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with its subjects.
Because the whole concept of the Crown being in partnership with a minority of New Zealanders who chance to have at least one Maori ancestor is fundamentally at odds with the concept of a democracy where all citizens have equal constitutional rights, voters deserve to know whether the Prime Minister really does hold this view or not.
It is hard to see how New Zealand would long remain a democracy if a minority of us were to have preferential political rights by virtue of birth.
Yours sincerely,
Don Brash
As of today’s date, I have had no further reply, either from Warren Howe or, of course, from the Prime Minister.
And I’m not really surprised because none of the parties who signed the Treaty in 1840, or the British Government which had authorised Governor Hobson to negotiate the cession of such sovereignty as the chiefs had, had any thought that they were negotiating a partnership. None was created.
Continuing to promote the myth that a partnership was created, and endures now between the Crown and those who chance to have some Maori ancestry (always now with ancestors of other ethnicities too of course), is an extreme danger to our democracy.
www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/the-prime-minister-won-t-answer-because-she-can-t
On 9 July 2021, stuff newspaper the “Waikato Times” comes up with a headline: “Rangiriri Pā trenches where Māori fought British invasion of Waikato to be restored”.
And spokesman Brad Totorewa chips in with “We’re still in grievance mode. But we know sharing our narratives of the invasion of our people will transform and enhance the thinking of all New Zealanders.”
Now since the Waikato had been sovereign British territory for more than twenty years by all due processes of law, that is a bit curious, is it not? No country “invades” its own territory, but if, as in this case, it is under the control of a rebel faction, then the legitimate government has every right to take action to recover it. And this is what Governor Grey did, his patience exhausted by the continued defiance of all his attempts to resolve the issues, so well described by John Robinson in “The Kingite Rebellion”.
And it does not hurt to remind ourselves that at an early stage, the Waikato tribes had made advanced plans to attack Auckland, slaughtering all the citizens except those whose doors had been marked clandestinely with a white cross, the date for this invasion to be 1st September 1861.[ii]
So talking of a “British invasion” may be seen for what it is: a flagrant bit of political propaganda. If “the thinking of all New Zealanders” is to be transformed we had better look elsewhere than to Totorewa and his like who are, we note, still in “grievance mode” 158 years later!.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/bruce-moon-tall-tales-vs-true-history.html
Roger Childs: NEW ZEALAND’S GROWING APARTHEID
The original apartheid
The policy of apartheid (an Afrikaans word meaning “apartness” or “separation”) became official in South Africa with the election of the Nationalist Party to power in 1948. However polices in the country, based along racial lines, dated back to the early 20th century. The successive governments of the Union of South Africa passed many laws giving preference to the white minority – under 20% of the population – and discriminating against other groupings – Blacks, Asians and Coloureds. However from 1948 onwards apartheid was fine-tuned to base life in South Africa on the principles of “separate development”.
The Population Registration Act was in Prime Minister Daniel Malan’s words the basis for the whole policy of apartheid. Fundamentally people were classified by race/ethnicity. However, the legislation that followed essentially divided the people into two broad categories - WHITES and NON-WHITES. These laws separated the groups in the use of amenities, marriage and sexual relations, where people could live, go to work or school etc.. Historian David Harrison in his book The White Tribe of Africa observed that apartheid was designed to enforce separation in every sphere of life from buses to bed. The bottom line was to keep the minority whites in firm control of government and the economy.
Strengthening the separation
Successive South African administrations continued adding bricks to the apartheid wall, such as the -
* Native Resettlement Act
* Bantu Education Act
* Native Laws Amendment Act
* Extension of Universities Education Act
* Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act
* The Native Labour Act
* Native Abolition of Passes and Coordination of Documents Act.
Apartheid would last until 1990 when President F W de Klerk announced the abandonment of the policy. In 1994, in its first democratic election ever, the African National Congress swept to power and Nelson Mandela became president.
New Zealand’s road to apartheid – ignoring Treaty realities
Our brand of apartheid is both more subtle and more blatant. Most of the public are probably unaware that there are more than 100 piece of legislation making special provision for Maori rights and culture........
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/roger-childs-new-zealands-growing.html
Tony Sayers: BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU STICK YOUR MOKO
I have just read about the Maori outrage over the usage of a cartoon figure decorated with a moko (tattoo) for advertising a Covid-19 vaccination programme, that was commissioned by a Te Tiriti Joint Governance Group, comprised of the Bay of Plenty District Health Board and Te Rūnanga Hauora Māori o te Moana a Toi. {1], [5].
The depiction of a virus decorated with tā moko has offended a considerable number of Maori.
Labour List MP, Tamati Coffey has dubbed this illustration as being racist [2].
In New Zealand, (Oops, Aotearoa), the bulk of accusations made in the news media about incidents of racism appear to be of Maori accusing Pakehas of racism. To date, where there have been incidents of racism by Maori towards pakeha, they just do not receive any publicity, consequently the public become conditioned to the idea that only Pakeha can be racist.
With this particular news report, anyone reading about the offence caused to Maori from a depiction of a Covid virus decorated with a tattoo getting the boot, will assume that it is those pesky pakehas again.
Already, I am overcome with ‘white guilt’.
I feel the need to go and flagellate myself with a piece of barbed wire.
But hang on!
Before I search for the band-aids, perhaps I should take a look at this through my euro-centric lens.....
breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/07/tony-sayers-be-careful-where-you-stick.html
THE PRIME MINISTER WON’T ANSWER BECAUSE SHE CAN’T – Don Brash
In recent years, the Ardern Government has gone heavily over-board with the notion that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between Maori New Zealanders and the rest of us. It now appears to be an absolute requirement of those who would make progress under this Government to sign up to this view of our constitution. As an example, all those in the media who seek financial support from the Government’s $55 million media slush fund must formally endorse the idea that the Treaty created a “partnership”.
Given that I myself can see not the slightest justification for the “Treaty as partnership”, I decided to write to the Prime Minister to ask her to explain her view. On 19 June 2021, I sent her the following email (which appeared on this blog on 21 June):
Prime Minister,
Again and again, you and your Ministers refer to the “partnership” created by the Treaty of Waitangi. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain to me (and to the many other New Zealanders who would be interested in your answer) where you found reference to “partnership”, or any synonym of “partnership”, in any version of the Treaty.
While there have been various attempts in recent decades to argue that the chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 really didn’t cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria - despite the speeches made at the time and subsequently at a large conference of chiefs in Kohimarama in 1860 - there can be no doubt what the actual words of the Treaty provided.
I understand from Dr Michael Bassett (a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for a decade, a highly regarded New Zealand historian, and of course a long-time Labour Member of Parliament) that when he was on the Tribunal the translation of the Treaty which was generally accepted was that by Sir Hugh Kawharu. Sir Hugh translated the three clauses of the Treaty thus:
“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.
“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”
As you can see, there is not the slightest reference to a “partnership”, and leading Labour politicians such as David Lange frequently ridiculed the very idea that Queen Victoria would have been willing to enter into a partnership with 500 chiefs, none of whom she had even met.
On the contrary, what the Treaty guaranteed in Article III was a guarantee of “the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England”.
Surely no other interpretation of the Treaty is consistent with democracy and it would accordingly be reassuring if you were to make it absolutely clear that your Government will not sanction any policy which gives a preference to any New Zealander on the basis of their having a Maori ancestor.
Yours sincerely,
Don Brash
Having heard nothing from the Prime Minister’s office by 28 June, I phoned her office and spoke to one of her senior staff. He was very cordial, apologised that I had not yet had an answer to my email, and said that I would get a reply shortly. Sure enough, I received an email from one Warren Howe in the Office of the Prime Minister some 10 days later, on 7 July.
Dear Don,
I am writing on behalf of the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, to acknowledge your email of 19 June 2021. Please be assured your comments have been noted.
As the issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Maori Crown Relations, Hon Kelvin Davis, your email has been forwarded to the Minister’s office for consideration.
Thank you for writing, and take care.
Best wishes
Warren Howe
Office of the Prime Minister
And on 8 July, I sent this reply:
Dear Warren,
With respect, I wrote to the Prime Minister deliberately, not to the Minister for Maori Crown Relations, because she is the Prime Minister, it is she who largely determines the culture and policy of the Government, and it is she who frequently refers to the “partnership” created by the Treaty of Waitangi.
I have to assume that she believes that a “partnership” was created by the Treaty and I was asking her why she believes that, despite there being not the slightest shred of evidence of that in the Treaty (in either language), in the speeches given at the time of the signing, or in the speeches given on many subsequent occasions, such as the gathering of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.
The idea of a “partnership” between those with a Maori ancestor and the rest of us has, as I mentioned in my earlier email, been ridiculed not only by prominent Labour Party Leaders such as David Lange but by legal scholars who say that it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with its subjects.
Because the whole concept of the Crown being in partnership with a minority of New Zealanders who chance to have at least one Maori ancestor is fundamentally at odds with the concept of a democracy where all citizens have equal constitutional rights, voters deserve to know whether the Prime Minister really does hold this view or not.
It is hard to see how New Zealand would long remain a democracy if a minority of us were to have preferential political rights by virtue of birth.
Yours sincerely,
Don Brash
As of today’s date, I have had no further reply, either from Warren Howe or, of course, from the Prime Minister.
And I’m not really surprised because none of the parties who signed the Treaty in 1840, or the British Government which had authorised Governor Hobson to negotiate the cession of such sovereignty as the chiefs had, had any thought that they were negotiating a partnership. None was created.
Continuing to promote the myth that a partnership was created, and endures now between the Crown and those who chance to have some Maori ancestry (always now with ancestors of other ethnicities too of course), is an extreme danger to our democracy.
www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/the-prime-minister-won-t-answer-because-she-can-t