Post by Kiwi Frontline on Apr 13, 2020 4:47:36 GMT 12
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Fielding-Rangitikei Herald 6/4/20)
In an article by S Kilminster in the Feilding-Rangitikei Herald for 19th March 2020, it is reported that Ngati Raukawa and associates have lodged a claim concerning 130,000 hectares “taken by deceit” in 1869.
Yet at 5:18pm on 2nd June 2012, RNZ News reported that “The Government on Saturday signed a $50 million Deed of Settlement for all outstanding historical Treaty claims with Ngati Raukawa.”
It would appear that Ngati Raukawa have long memories when it suits them and very short ones when it doesn’t. No doubt, Eddie Durie will have an explanation.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to Kiwi Frontline 25/3/20)
Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney (Northland Age 17/3/20) ‘Begging’ is appropriate wording as the actual letter written by the chiefs (1831) states “we have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land. Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.” - it is clear these brave warrior chiefs were in mortal fear of the French and knew they could not ‘sort the problem’ so prayed (begged) for help from the British. tinyurl.com/rtuww35
Clearly the French threat was the priority concern in that letter, with ‘teasing of other tribes’ (Maori tribal warfare) being the second consideration, land annexation thirdly, and lastly it was the few unruly settlers. Activist Maori nationalists bear on the latter.
Further, only the one-eyed ungrateful would label ‘requested help’ as an ‘invasion’
The bogus English version treaty has only had validity since the mid 1970s, and Pukeroa-McKinney is correct that the racially stacked and biased Waitangi Tribunal do use the differences between the two treaty texts to polemically transfer NZs wealth and assets to Maori, in doing so divide our society. There is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti so Contra Proferentem does not apply.
It is not only David Rankin that maligns the controversial Waitangi Tribunal, Brian Priestley MBE says “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth". tinyurl.com/twngyj6
Dr Michael Bassett a noted political historian, who was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for 10yrs, observed “what you have been dealing with for the last 30years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it.” (NBR March 2005)
Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. "The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause."
This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians - including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver - have raised similar concerns.....Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says. tinyurl.com/vrnpom6
In Pukeroa-McKinney’s initial letter (27/3/20) she wrote “we (Maori) were trading internationally...” - my dictionary defines ‘internationally’ as “Thoughout the world” - Pukeroa’s spurious argument (17/3/20) appears to cover the Pacific area only? - Hardly internationally!
Lastly, I do accept that the incompatible Maori and non-Maori worldviews differ. The Maori worldview is one of tribalism which has inequality as it’s base and the non-Maori worldview is one of democracy which is based on equality - see Elizabeth Rata tinyurl.com/w4x4wg6
It appears that tribalist malcontents want our beautiful country to become the Zimbabwe of the South Pacific.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 23/3/20)
A police man from Dargaville District Constable Corbett had a passion for early history of the region as it just happened the original journals covering policing activites for the late 1800’s were housed at the Ruawai police station. During quiet times Constable Corbett loved to dip into these journals which he called day books’ and read extracts penned by earlier constables.
One historical detail that he told friends about a lands department survey in 1860’s of a Hugh cavern system on the Southern end of Poutu Peninsula where there were many thousands of skeletons. When Governor Bowen came to the northern Wairoa in the late 1860’s he met with 600 Maoris assembled from all over Northland at Te Kopuru. He put it to those assembled the question of ‘who did these skeletons belong to’ Maori replied they did not know who these peoples were and to ‘do with them what you wish, they are not our people” This is recorded in Bowen’s paper and journals of the time which can be read in the Alexander Turnbull library.
Around 60,000 of these skeletons were taken to Robertson bone mill in Onehunga to be ground up as ‘dust fertiliser’ over a three year period. There are still many more in sites around, they did not get them all.
A visiting forensic Pathologist from England with over 50 years experience who examined some of the remains that still existed and a DNA was done by the Pathologist and his results were that they came from a race of people living in Wales over 3500 years ago.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Waitomo News 15/3/20)
Thank you for publishing my letter (12/3/20) and for correcting my slip in spelling “Rangiaowhia”.
Tom Roa did write to me saying I was “deceitful” and “inciting racial hatred”. Elsewhere, carried away by his own rhetoric, he has described the Rangiaowhia affray as a “war crime”. While the church-burning lie seems at last to have been discredited, he has now substituted the equally false tale of the destruction of a “whare karakia”. This was in fact a whare full of armed rebels, one of whom, Hoani Papita, shot Sergeant McHale when asked to surrender – an “atrocity” in terms of your own definition, leading to the destruction of the whare and deaths on both sides.
Rangiaowhia was, as you say, a “very productive village” thanks to horticultural advice provided by benevolent Governor Grey but as the supplier of food to the rebels at Paterangi, it was fully involved in the rebellion.
You say “someone decided it was British sovereign territory” as indeed it was, this being established over the whole country in 1840 after 540 chiefs ceded their sovereign rights to the Queen. It is thus nonsense to describe its recovery from the rebels as an “invasion”. This does nothing to improve race relations in New Zealand, an objective which I most earnestly desire.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate & Northland Age 14/3/20)
Hone Heke’s rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with “breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi” as the article ‘1845 Battle of Kororareka Remembered’ (Northern Advocate 12/3/20) states
Heke’s ‘concerns’ were that the Governor relocated New Zealand’s capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.
Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.
Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi’s traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.
Heke is noted as the first to sign the Treaty and the first in Maoridom to breach that which he had signed.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age & Northern Advocate 14/3/20)
Astonishing! - ‘Māori land not included in court action over unpaid rates: Far North District Council’ (Northern Advocate 11/3/20).
If other freehold landholders do not pay their rates councils will go through the debt collection process which could force the sale of the property, so why does this not apply to Maori?
Nanaia Mahuta’s new bill to Parliament allowing councils to write off rates arrears on Māori freehold land is racist preferential treatment and disadvantages everyone else as a result.
In a colour blind society all land owners should be treated equally for rating purposes. i.e. there should be no racial discrimination against those who are not of Maori descent.
Further, the Far North District Council should not be cowering to ‘warning shots’ (threats) from Matthew Tukaki an ex ‘puppet’ of the controversial United Nations.
Appeasing militant Maori will result in further demands for special racial privileges & rights, vital resources, funding and assets, which will increase their power and control of New Zealand.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters
In an article by S Kilminster in the Feilding-Rangitikei Herald for 19th March 2020, it is reported that Ngati Raukawa and associates have lodged a claim concerning 130,000 hectares “taken by deceit” in 1869.
Yet at 5:18pm on 2nd June 2012, RNZ News reported that “The Government on Saturday signed a $50 million Deed of Settlement for all outstanding historical Treaty claims with Ngati Raukawa.”
It would appear that Ngati Raukawa have long memories when it suits them and very short ones when it doesn’t. No doubt, Eddie Durie will have an explanation.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to Kiwi Frontline 25/3/20)
Caroline Pukeroa-McKinney (Northland Age 17/3/20) ‘Begging’ is appropriate wording as the actual letter written by the chiefs (1831) states “we have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land. Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.” - it is clear these brave warrior chiefs were in mortal fear of the French and knew they could not ‘sort the problem’ so prayed (begged) for help from the British. tinyurl.com/rtuww35
Clearly the French threat was the priority concern in that letter, with ‘teasing of other tribes’ (Maori tribal warfare) being the second consideration, land annexation thirdly, and lastly it was the few unruly settlers. Activist Maori nationalists bear on the latter.
Further, only the one-eyed ungrateful would label ‘requested help’ as an ‘invasion’
The bogus English version treaty has only had validity since the mid 1970s, and Pukeroa-McKinney is correct that the racially stacked and biased Waitangi Tribunal do use the differences between the two treaty texts to polemically transfer NZs wealth and assets to Maori, in doing so divide our society. There is no ambiguity in Te Tiriti so Contra Proferentem does not apply.
It is not only David Rankin that maligns the controversial Waitangi Tribunal, Brian Priestley MBE says “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth". tinyurl.com/twngyj6
Dr Michael Bassett a noted political historian, who was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for 10yrs, observed “what you have been dealing with for the last 30years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games that are being played with it.” (NBR March 2005)
Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. "The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause."
This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians - including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver - have raised similar concerns.....Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says. tinyurl.com/vrnpom6
In Pukeroa-McKinney’s initial letter (27/3/20) she wrote “we (Maori) were trading internationally...” - my dictionary defines ‘internationally’ as “Thoughout the world” - Pukeroa’s spurious argument (17/3/20) appears to cover the Pacific area only? - Hardly internationally!
Lastly, I do accept that the incompatible Maori and non-Maori worldviews differ. The Maori worldview is one of tribalism which has inequality as it’s base and the non-Maori worldview is one of democracy which is based on equality - see Elizabeth Rata tinyurl.com/w4x4wg6
It appears that tribalist malcontents want our beautiful country to become the Zimbabwe of the South Pacific.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 23/3/20)
A police man from Dargaville District Constable Corbett had a passion for early history of the region as it just happened the original journals covering policing activites for the late 1800’s were housed at the Ruawai police station. During quiet times Constable Corbett loved to dip into these journals which he called day books’ and read extracts penned by earlier constables.
One historical detail that he told friends about a lands department survey in 1860’s of a Hugh cavern system on the Southern end of Poutu Peninsula where there were many thousands of skeletons. When Governor Bowen came to the northern Wairoa in the late 1860’s he met with 600 Maoris assembled from all over Northland at Te Kopuru. He put it to those assembled the question of ‘who did these skeletons belong to’ Maori replied they did not know who these peoples were and to ‘do with them what you wish, they are not our people” This is recorded in Bowen’s paper and journals of the time which can be read in the Alexander Turnbull library.
Around 60,000 of these skeletons were taken to Robertson bone mill in Onehunga to be ground up as ‘dust fertiliser’ over a three year period. There are still many more in sites around, they did not get them all.
A visiting forensic Pathologist from England with over 50 years experience who examined some of the remains that still existed and a DNA was done by the Pathologist and his results were that they came from a race of people living in Wales over 3500 years ago.
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Waitomo News 15/3/20)
Thank you for publishing my letter (12/3/20) and for correcting my slip in spelling “Rangiaowhia”.
Tom Roa did write to me saying I was “deceitful” and “inciting racial hatred”. Elsewhere, carried away by his own rhetoric, he has described the Rangiaowhia affray as a “war crime”. While the church-burning lie seems at last to have been discredited, he has now substituted the equally false tale of the destruction of a “whare karakia”. This was in fact a whare full of armed rebels, one of whom, Hoani Papita, shot Sergeant McHale when asked to surrender – an “atrocity” in terms of your own definition, leading to the destruction of the whare and deaths on both sides.
Rangiaowhia was, as you say, a “very productive village” thanks to horticultural advice provided by benevolent Governor Grey but as the supplier of food to the rebels at Paterangi, it was fully involved in the rebellion.
You say “someone decided it was British sovereign territory” as indeed it was, this being established over the whole country in 1840 after 540 chiefs ceded their sovereign rights to the Queen. It is thus nonsense to describe its recovery from the rebels as an “invasion”. This does nothing to improve race relations in New Zealand, an objective which I most earnestly desire.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate & Northland Age 14/3/20)
Hone Heke’s rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with “breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi” as the article ‘1845 Battle of Kororareka Remembered’ (Northern Advocate 12/3/20) states
Heke’s ‘concerns’ were that the Governor relocated New Zealand’s capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up at Auckland.
Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues and also the loss of money from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.
Even more infuriating perhaps was the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi’s traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.
Heke is noted as the first to sign the Treaty and the first in Maoridom to breach that which he had signed.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age & Northern Advocate 14/3/20)
Astonishing! - ‘Māori land not included in court action over unpaid rates: Far North District Council’ (Northern Advocate 11/3/20).
If other freehold landholders do not pay their rates councils will go through the debt collection process which could force the sale of the property, so why does this not apply to Maori?
Nanaia Mahuta’s new bill to Parliament allowing councils to write off rates arrears on Māori freehold land is racist preferential treatment and disadvantages everyone else as a result.
In a colour blind society all land owners should be treated equally for rating purposes. i.e. there should be no racial discrimination against those who are not of Maori descent.
Further, the Far North District Council should not be cowering to ‘warning shots’ (threats) from Matthew Tukaki an ex ‘puppet’ of the controversial United Nations.
Appeasing militant Maori will result in further demands for special racial privileges & rights, vital resources, funding and assets, which will increase their power and control of New Zealand.
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers/unpublished-letters