Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 4, 2016 17:40:42 GMT 12
NZ Herald 4/3/16
RACIST RESPONSES
Christopher Finlayson is complaining about alleged KKK-type abuse he is receiving in the context of Waitangi settlements. I understand that he reacts very unfavourably when anyone disagrees with his actions. He should release a representative collection so Joe Public can assess the veracity of his claims. We never seem to hear anything about the benefits that Western civilisation has brought to New Zealand, for which there should be a quid pro quo. Likewise, have there ever been any intertribal claims such as arising from the Musket Wars? (I thought not.)
P. D. P
Albany.
Published in the Otago Daily Times, (Date unknown)
Dear Sir,
The article "A Treaty For Our Times" (O.D.T 6th February ), speaks of "apologies" to Maori and "economic redress" with obvious reference to the entrenched propaganda that Maori land was misappropriated or stolen by the "wicked white man" during the time that N.Z was being colonized / civilised.
There was never any theft of Maori land.
Moreover, to Maori of the time loss of largely unused land was more significant as a loss
of Mana than anything else.
Only later, and as a result of European colonisation, technology and Herculean hard work did land begin to assume its economic potential and value.
While the intrinsic aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological value of land for all peoples is
obvious, it only acquired economic value in New Zealand, through the advent of
colonisation / settlement / civilisation.
The purely economic value of unmodified land to primitive societies rested soley upon
what naturally occurring resources a hunter / gatherer could glean from it. Its modern
economic value depends entirely upon what it can produce under skilled human
stewardship, as in agriculture, horticulture, and all other forms of farming.
Similarly the economic value of natural raw materials in the earth, be they minerals, oil,
gold, timber or whatever else, is relative to the knowledge and technology required to
locate, recognise, extract and utilise them. Natural resources of any kind do not acquire
economic value until human beings transform them into useful commodities by dint of
their intelligence and industry.
Fabricated land grievances would not be such an effective weapon of the part-Maori activists if it was understood that loss of land per sec was not such an economic disadvantage to them as they claim. Obviously, economic advantage cannot accrue from land until it is managed to economic ends. Similarly, economic disadvantage can only result from land lost or sold to the extent that it was, or would have been economically worked. To this very day a significant proportion of Maori land is under-utilised in the economic sense, or is leased to others to manage to their economic benefit. In cases where Maori land was eventually worked by them in post-colonial times to their
own economic advantage, this too only became possible by virtue of social / economic
circumstances resulting from European colonisation / civilisation.
CR
Otago
RACIST RESPONSES
Christopher Finlayson is complaining about alleged KKK-type abuse he is receiving in the context of Waitangi settlements. I understand that he reacts very unfavourably when anyone disagrees with his actions. He should release a representative collection so Joe Public can assess the veracity of his claims. We never seem to hear anything about the benefits that Western civilisation has brought to New Zealand, for which there should be a quid pro quo. Likewise, have there ever been any intertribal claims such as arising from the Musket Wars? (I thought not.)
P. D. P
Albany.
Published in the Otago Daily Times, (Date unknown)
Dear Sir,
The article "A Treaty For Our Times" (O.D.T 6th February ), speaks of "apologies" to Maori and "economic redress" with obvious reference to the entrenched propaganda that Maori land was misappropriated or stolen by the "wicked white man" during the time that N.Z was being colonized / civilised.
There was never any theft of Maori land.
Moreover, to Maori of the time loss of largely unused land was more significant as a loss
of Mana than anything else.
Only later, and as a result of European colonisation, technology and Herculean hard work did land begin to assume its economic potential and value.
While the intrinsic aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological value of land for all peoples is
obvious, it only acquired economic value in New Zealand, through the advent of
colonisation / settlement / civilisation.
The purely economic value of unmodified land to primitive societies rested soley upon
what naturally occurring resources a hunter / gatherer could glean from it. Its modern
economic value depends entirely upon what it can produce under skilled human
stewardship, as in agriculture, horticulture, and all other forms of farming.
Similarly the economic value of natural raw materials in the earth, be they minerals, oil,
gold, timber or whatever else, is relative to the knowledge and technology required to
locate, recognise, extract and utilise them. Natural resources of any kind do not acquire
economic value until human beings transform them into useful commodities by dint of
their intelligence and industry.
Fabricated land grievances would not be such an effective weapon of the part-Maori activists if it was understood that loss of land per sec was not such an economic disadvantage to them as they claim. Obviously, economic advantage cannot accrue from land until it is managed to economic ends. Similarly, economic disadvantage can only result from land lost or sold to the extent that it was, or would have been economically worked. To this very day a significant proportion of Maori land is under-utilised in the economic sense, or is leased to others to manage to their economic benefit. In cases where Maori land was eventually worked by them in post-colonial times to their
own economic advantage, this too only became possible by virtue of social / economic
circumstances resulting from European colonisation / civilisation.
CR
Otago