Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 21, 2019 6:41:48 GMT 12
Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 13/7/19)
Today it has become commonplace to exaggerate and use extravagant words or expressions for what are often minor events or conditions.
Instead of being affected by a cold we are just as likely to be impacted, a word once most used to describe what an asteroid did to wipe out the dinosaurs.
This practice is no more obvious than when Maori issues or colonisation is the topic.
Prominent examples are the description of Parihaka as a holocaust when in fact no injuries were sustained, and describing as atrocities at Rangiaowhia in 1864 when there were 12 Maori deaths solely as a result of one hot head refusing to surrender and then firing at troops from a whare, while surrounded by a force of more than 1000.
Very recently your correspondent Martin van Beynen described “Cook’s visit was the beginning of a catastrophe” My Collin’s dictionary describes a catastrophe as “a sudden, extensive or notable disaster or misfortune”.
As a race Maori were in a precarious position in 1769. History would suggest Cook’s arrival was the greatest event in their history and he should be placed on a pedestal alongside Gov. Grey.
I am constantly bewildered by how different we and the Australians view Cook.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 13/7/19)
“Today in History” 12th July erroneously referred to the British troops invading the Waikato on that day in 1863.
New Zealand had been established as a British colony over 20 years earlier under Queen Victoria as Sovereign.
Troops under her command were merely exercising that authority.
Foolishly the “Kingite” movement chose to exclude anyone access to the Waikato south of the Mangatawhiri Stream.
They did so in the belief that as “Waikato” had not signed the Treaty of Waitangi they were under no compulsion to obey any directive from Gov. Gen. Grey.
That assertion was in error. The third largest signing of the Treaty was within the Waikato rohe, at Port Waikato, when of the 32 signatories most were chiefs under Te Wherowhero.
Many of them had travelled from the King Country to sign. There was also a later signing at Kawhia.
Gen. Cameron, ordered by Grey under the Queens authority, exercised the Crowns right to put down a rebellion. Sadly the result was very punitive land confiscations, however this was recognised a number of times over the years, last being in 1995 when Tainui received $170m with much more to come as the Treaty process rumbles on.
Sadly the signing at Port Waikato has no recognition today. I suspect the reason why is to avoid exposing the folly of the Kingite movement.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 9/7/19)
It is surely time for the likes of Wally Te Ua (Herald, 8/7/19) to acknowledge that pre colonial Maori society was one of continual brutal and treacherous cannibal warfare. In a few short pre-colonial decades one third of their own people perished. So much of the breeding stock was killed that their numbers declined for many decades and recovered only through extensive inter-breeding with the wicked white colonials. Wally’s “Land Wars (the bloody past)”, more accurately described as tribal rebellions, were a mere sideshow by comparison. Remember as the first arrival of Captain Cook is commemorated that a dozen of the crew of his second ship, “Adventure”, were killed, cooked and eaten in Queen Charlotte Sound in 1773. He did not retaliate.
It was those who followed in the footsteps of Cook who saved the Maori people from themselves as acknowledged by Chief Taipari of the Bay of Plenty. My advice to Wally is to recognize this, get over his alleged wrongs and get on with life.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
Today it has become commonplace to exaggerate and use extravagant words or expressions for what are often minor events or conditions.
Instead of being affected by a cold we are just as likely to be impacted, a word once most used to describe what an asteroid did to wipe out the dinosaurs.
This practice is no more obvious than when Maori issues or colonisation is the topic.
Prominent examples are the description of Parihaka as a holocaust when in fact no injuries were sustained, and describing as atrocities at Rangiaowhia in 1864 when there were 12 Maori deaths solely as a result of one hot head refusing to surrender and then firing at troops from a whare, while surrounded by a force of more than 1000.
Very recently your correspondent Martin van Beynen described “Cook’s visit was the beginning of a catastrophe” My Collin’s dictionary describes a catastrophe as “a sudden, extensive or notable disaster or misfortune”.
As a race Maori were in a precarious position in 1769. History would suggest Cook’s arrival was the greatest event in their history and he should be placed on a pedestal alongside Gov. Grey.
I am constantly bewildered by how different we and the Australians view Cook.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Ed, (Sent to the Waikato Times 13/7/19)
“Today in History” 12th July erroneously referred to the British troops invading the Waikato on that day in 1863.
New Zealand had been established as a British colony over 20 years earlier under Queen Victoria as Sovereign.
Troops under her command were merely exercising that authority.
Foolishly the “Kingite” movement chose to exclude anyone access to the Waikato south of the Mangatawhiri Stream.
They did so in the belief that as “Waikato” had not signed the Treaty of Waitangi they were under no compulsion to obey any directive from Gov. Gen. Grey.
That assertion was in error. The third largest signing of the Treaty was within the Waikato rohe, at Port Waikato, when of the 32 signatories most were chiefs under Te Wherowhero.
Many of them had travelled from the King Country to sign. There was also a later signing at Kawhia.
Gen. Cameron, ordered by Grey under the Queens authority, exercised the Crowns right to put down a rebellion. Sadly the result was very punitive land confiscations, however this was recognised a number of times over the years, last being in 1995 when Tainui received $170m with much more to come as the Treaty process rumbles on.
Sadly the signing at Port Waikato has no recognition today. I suspect the reason why is to avoid exposing the folly of the Kingite movement.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Gisborne Herald 9/7/19)
It is surely time for the likes of Wally Te Ua (Herald, 8/7/19) to acknowledge that pre colonial Maori society was one of continual brutal and treacherous cannibal warfare. In a few short pre-colonial decades one third of their own people perished. So much of the breeding stock was killed that their numbers declined for many decades and recovered only through extensive inter-breeding with the wicked white colonials. Wally’s “Land Wars (the bloody past)”, more accurately described as tribal rebellions, were a mere sideshow by comparison. Remember as the first arrival of Captain Cook is commemorated that a dozen of the crew of his second ship, “Adventure”, were killed, cooked and eaten in Queen Charlotte Sound in 1773. He did not retaliate.
It was those who followed in the footsteps of Cook who saved the Maori people from themselves as acknowledged by Chief Taipari of the Bay of Plenty. My advice to Wally is to recognize this, get over his alleged wrongs and get on with life.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters