Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 16, 2017 17:49:06 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Listener 28/9/17)
The arithmetic of power
Your claim that Winston Peters has 100% of the power is superficial and wrong.
In the first place, whatever power he appears to have is much less that 100% and it is transitory. Again, if National were to ally with the Greens - unlikely but possible - all of Peters' "power" would disappear in an instant.
You appear to have forgotten that for some years immediately prior to the recent election,, the Maori Party with less than 2% of the popular vote, had a very great deal of power, leading amongst other things to the flagrant racist preference for Maoris in the amended Resource Management Act, desperately pushed through by the National Party government.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor (Sent to the Waikato Times 22/9/17)
Tom O'Connor in his reply to Chris Lee (Waikato Times 22/9/17) endeavors to deflect criticism by claiming that James Cowan's historical accounts are questionable.
James Cowan is the definitive historian on the NZ Wars. He was brought up on the old Waipa frontier and learn much from talking with Maori chiefs and warriors as well as European settlers. He spoke fluent Maori. He tramped miles to visit battle sites and sought out veterans of the Wars, both Maori and European,women as well as men, to learn first hand much of what doesn't appears in official documents. No historian ancient or modern can claim his credentials.
If I had to choice between the opinion of some modern-day historical revisionist and James Cowan's account, I'll back Cowan's account every day.
RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 14/9/17)
Once upon a time there was a Maori language but academics thought they knew better and set about changing it. Why? Hon Pita Sharples had this to say on One News at 6.00, “The Treaty is in our language and if it’s in our language we can make it mean anything we want it to “. Which I take to mean, “Te Reo cannot be translated”. How could it be trustfully translated if you can make it to mean “anything you want it to”.
Why would academics want to murder “their language”.
Even so, Te Reo is still composed of bastardised English and Gaelic in attempt to expand a seriously restricted communication mode for the simplest of words.
The language has been murdered by academics to such an extent it doesn’t even sound like the original, statically rhythmed pre-Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi era.
So sad to know this treasure’s confiscated. Why did we need Te Reo when what we had was adequate and sounded far superior.
IAN BROUGHAM , Tawhero
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
The arithmetic of power
Your claim that Winston Peters has 100% of the power is superficial and wrong.
In the first place, whatever power he appears to have is much less that 100% and it is transitory. Again, if National were to ally with the Greens - unlikely but possible - all of Peters' "power" would disappear in an instant.
You appear to have forgotten that for some years immediately prior to the recent election,, the Maori Party with less than 2% of the popular vote, had a very great deal of power, leading amongst other things to the flagrant racist preference for Maoris in the amended Resource Management Act, desperately pushed through by the National Party government.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor (Sent to the Waikato Times 22/9/17)
Tom O'Connor in his reply to Chris Lee (Waikato Times 22/9/17) endeavors to deflect criticism by claiming that James Cowan's historical accounts are questionable.
James Cowan is the definitive historian on the NZ Wars. He was brought up on the old Waipa frontier and learn much from talking with Maori chiefs and warriors as well as European settlers. He spoke fluent Maori. He tramped miles to visit battle sites and sought out veterans of the Wars, both Maori and European,women as well as men, to learn first hand much of what doesn't appears in official documents. No historian ancient or modern can claim his credentials.
If I had to choice between the opinion of some modern-day historical revisionist and James Cowan's account, I'll back Cowan's account every day.
RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 14/9/17)
Once upon a time there was a Maori language but academics thought they knew better and set about changing it. Why? Hon Pita Sharples had this to say on One News at 6.00, “The Treaty is in our language and if it’s in our language we can make it mean anything we want it to “. Which I take to mean, “Te Reo cannot be translated”. How could it be trustfully translated if you can make it to mean “anything you want it to”.
Why would academics want to murder “their language”.
Even so, Te Reo is still composed of bastardised English and Gaelic in attempt to expand a seriously restricted communication mode for the simplest of words.
The language has been murdered by academics to such an extent it doesn’t even sound like the original, statically rhythmed pre-Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi era.
So sad to know this treasure’s confiscated. Why did we need Te Reo when what we had was adequate and sounded far superior.
IAN BROUGHAM , Tawhero
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters