Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jul 27, 2020 14:53:44 GMT 12
5 UNPUBLISHED LETTERS TO THE EDITORS
Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 23/7/20)
We live in a time when the move to separate church and state has been persistent and largely successful, and Christianity is definitely viewed as “unwoke” by the left. Consequently, I am frequently surprised when a prayer in te reo is made to start many council or tertiary education functions in public spaces, particularly as the majority of attendees would have no idea of what is being intoned.
Then in the Herald article “Te reo learning on the rise” (22 July 2020), we read that primary schools (even those with few or no Maori on the roll) are leading prayers and blessings in te reo to start and end the day, as well as at morning tea and lunch.
This is substantially more religion imposed on the children than when I was young. In fact, I remember nothing other than 30mins of Bible stories per week in the public primary school I attended. There were certainly no prayers at assembly or school functions, in English or otherwise.
So it appears that our councils and education services are not at all secular, but simply favour one religion over others.
FIONA MACKENZIE, Whangaparaoa
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle & Northland Age 18/7/20)
The statement by Potonga Neilson, in the Chronicle 18th July 2020 is very interesting, “if you leave the land you leave all rights to it”.
He seems to forget that in 1835 the Waikato completely annihilated the Taranaki tribes with one third being slaughtered , one third taken as slaves and the rest fleeing south. Taranaki left the land, therefore lost all rights to it. The ones that fled south travelling to the Chatham island and slaughtered or farmed the Moriori like swine into virtual extinction.
He also seems to forget the Treaty of Waitangi only gave tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England if the chiefs gave up their individual governments/lores to the Queen. The Treaty made no laws or recognised Maori lore.
The laws in New Zealand were made by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840. It made New Zealand into a British Colony on the 3 May 1841 with a Governor and Constitution that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed.
I cannot understand why Potonga thinks the Treaty has not been honoured, the tangata Maori chiefs gave up their governments and the Queen gave them the same rights as the people of England, plus the Maori Land Court, Maori trustees and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development ) not mentioned in the Treaty.
If Potonga wants the Treaty honoured, then government would have to take away The Maori Land Court, Maori trustees and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development) plus, many other special rights to Maori. Does he really want that?
IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 16/7/20)
Re Nicola Patrick Letter July 16 She said that she liked the now- historic debate on spelling Whanganui with an H, she said she did research putting weight on expert views, I would be interested to know where she got her expert views from. Nicola certainly did not get it from the treaty document of 1840 that the Wanganui chiefs signed “Chief of Wanganui”. With out the H. Nicola also did not get it from the Waitaha Paramount Chief who said the name belongs to them they were a pre-Maori people who were Caucasian and lived in Wanganui and spelt it without the H in it and were here over 200 Years before the arrival of Maori.
Nicola needs to tell the people of Wanganui who advised her on the spelling so they can judge her credibility for themselves. The Wanganui paper won’t print this letter but some one else will
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northland Age 9/7/20 & Northern Advocate 15/7/20)
Apparently Cirran Payne (Letters 4/7/20) is unaware of pre-treaty female infanticide, slavery and cannibalism when propagandising about the fine Maori character and how well Maori looked after their children.
I am more than happy to go back beyond 1970 to dispel her/his Maori land loss myth, one only has to read the hundreds of Turtons Deeds (Victoria University) to see that Maori sold most of the land willingly. The Treaty of Waitangi and most statutes, like the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 were to protect Maori land sellers from opportunist European land buyers, and or to help Maori adjust to changing times, however today’s crop of agitators twist these statutes to put them in bad light.
Maybe there was some societal discrimination/segregation towards Maori in the young colony but thankfully it isn’t so today. In early times many Maori lived on communal land did not pay taxes so were deemed unentitled to participate in the housing or government support schemes, other criteria also applied to these schemes for all applicants.
However, there is societal discrimination/segregation toward non-Maori today – a non-Maori is unable to join a tribe, unable to become a joint owner of Maori land, unable to benefit from the many Maori only privileges that exist today, prohibited from using a Maori name for a business or using Maori designs on sale goods.
Power should not be ‘shared’ as she/he asserts, in a democratic society the majority elected must govern otherwise democracy is undermined, tribalism and separatism likely to prevail.
Payne prattles the Maori nationalist mantra “what is good for Maori has to be good for us all” – isn’t it strange that what is good for all New Zealanders is never good enough for the activist Maori or their European sycophants?
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor (Sent to the Dominion Post, date unknown)
As a proud European descendant of enlightened colonisers I get angry about Maori wanting to destroy the statues in our cities. Captain Cook was a great, humane discoverer, well worth celebrating.
Maori have no right to demand the removal of statues in European cities. Only individual residents (of whatever race, of course) have that right (and the right to erect them).
In 1842 two entities, Crown and Maori, agreed to the Treaty of Waitangi – which we can all be justifiably proud of. But hey, weren’t all our cities eventually built on land acquired legally from Maori? And didn’t the Treaty guarantee each of the two parties that their land would be theirs forever to deal with as they wished?
There was no urbanisation of Maori until the 1960s. For one and a quarter century Maori lived “out there” - and we Europeans lived “in here”. Nobody in 1842 foresaw that collective Maori (i.e. Iwis and Maraes) would eventually move onto European land. But I am happy they did - we are now finally becoming one people (as Governor Hobson hoped for).
The Treaty gives collective Maori no right to poke their noses into what goes on in our European cities - in fact it precludes it.
ANDY ESPERSEN, Nelson
Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald 23/7/20)
We live in a time when the move to separate church and state has been persistent and largely successful, and Christianity is definitely viewed as “unwoke” by the left. Consequently, I am frequently surprised when a prayer in te reo is made to start many council or tertiary education functions in public spaces, particularly as the majority of attendees would have no idea of what is being intoned.
Then in the Herald article “Te reo learning on the rise” (22 July 2020), we read that primary schools (even those with few or no Maori on the roll) are leading prayers and blessings in te reo to start and end the day, as well as at morning tea and lunch.
This is substantially more religion imposed on the children than when I was young. In fact, I remember nothing other than 30mins of Bible stories per week in the public primary school I attended. There were certainly no prayers at assembly or school functions, in English or otherwise.
So it appears that our councils and education services are not at all secular, but simply favour one religion over others.
FIONA MACKENZIE, Whangaparaoa
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle & Northland Age 18/7/20)
The statement by Potonga Neilson, in the Chronicle 18th July 2020 is very interesting, “if you leave the land you leave all rights to it”.
He seems to forget that in 1835 the Waikato completely annihilated the Taranaki tribes with one third being slaughtered , one third taken as slaves and the rest fleeing south. Taranaki left the land, therefore lost all rights to it. The ones that fled south travelling to the Chatham island and slaughtered or farmed the Moriori like swine into virtual extinction.
He also seems to forget the Treaty of Waitangi only gave tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England if the chiefs gave up their individual governments/lores to the Queen. The Treaty made no laws or recognised Maori lore.
The laws in New Zealand were made by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840. It made New Zealand into a British Colony on the 3 May 1841 with a Governor and Constitution that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed.
I cannot understand why Potonga thinks the Treaty has not been honoured, the tangata Maori chiefs gave up their governments and the Queen gave them the same rights as the people of England, plus the Maori Land Court, Maori trustees and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development ) not mentioned in the Treaty.
If Potonga wants the Treaty honoured, then government would have to take away The Maori Land Court, Maori trustees and Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development) plus, many other special rights to Maori. Does he really want that?
IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero
Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 16/7/20)
Re Nicola Patrick Letter July 16 She said that she liked the now- historic debate on spelling Whanganui with an H, she said she did research putting weight on expert views, I would be interested to know where she got her expert views from. Nicola certainly did not get it from the treaty document of 1840 that the Wanganui chiefs signed “Chief of Wanganui”. With out the H. Nicola also did not get it from the Waitaha Paramount Chief who said the name belongs to them they were a pre-Maori people who were Caucasian and lived in Wanganui and spelt it without the H in it and were here over 200 Years before the arrival of Maori.
Nicola needs to tell the people of Wanganui who advised her on the spelling so they can judge her credibility for themselves. The Wanganui paper won’t print this letter but some one else will
IAN BROUGHAM, Wanganui
Dear Editor (Sent to the Northland Age 9/7/20 & Northern Advocate 15/7/20)
Apparently Cirran Payne (Letters 4/7/20) is unaware of pre-treaty female infanticide, slavery and cannibalism when propagandising about the fine Maori character and how well Maori looked after their children.
I am more than happy to go back beyond 1970 to dispel her/his Maori land loss myth, one only has to read the hundreds of Turtons Deeds (Victoria University) to see that Maori sold most of the land willingly. The Treaty of Waitangi and most statutes, like the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 were to protect Maori land sellers from opportunist European land buyers, and or to help Maori adjust to changing times, however today’s crop of agitators twist these statutes to put them in bad light.
Maybe there was some societal discrimination/segregation towards Maori in the young colony but thankfully it isn’t so today. In early times many Maori lived on communal land did not pay taxes so were deemed unentitled to participate in the housing or government support schemes, other criteria also applied to these schemes for all applicants.
However, there is societal discrimination/segregation toward non-Maori today – a non-Maori is unable to join a tribe, unable to become a joint owner of Maori land, unable to benefit from the many Maori only privileges that exist today, prohibited from using a Maori name for a business or using Maori designs on sale goods.
Power should not be ‘shared’ as she/he asserts, in a democratic society the majority elected must govern otherwise democracy is undermined, tribalism and separatism likely to prevail.
Payne prattles the Maori nationalist mantra “what is good for Maori has to be good for us all” – isn’t it strange that what is good for all New Zealanders is never good enough for the activist Maori or their European sycophants?
GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei
Dear Editor (Sent to the Dominion Post, date unknown)
As a proud European descendant of enlightened colonisers I get angry about Maori wanting to destroy the statues in our cities. Captain Cook was a great, humane discoverer, well worth celebrating.
Maori have no right to demand the removal of statues in European cities. Only individual residents (of whatever race, of course) have that right (and the right to erect them).
In 1842 two entities, Crown and Maori, agreed to the Treaty of Waitangi – which we can all be justifiably proud of. But hey, weren’t all our cities eventually built on land acquired legally from Maori? And didn’t the Treaty guarantee each of the two parties that their land would be theirs forever to deal with as they wished?
There was no urbanisation of Maori until the 1960s. For one and a quarter century Maori lived “out there” - and we Europeans lived “in here”. Nobody in 1842 foresaw that collective Maori (i.e. Iwis and Maraes) would eventually move onto European land. But I am happy they did - we are now finally becoming one people (as Governor Hobson hoped for).
The Treaty gives collective Maori no right to poke their noses into what goes on in our European cities - in fact it precludes it.
ANDY ESPERSEN, Nelson