Post by Kiwi Frontline on Jan 19, 2021 2:15:39 GMT 12
Northland Age 19/1/21
A CHANGING SOCIETY
Kevin Grose (letters Northern Advocate January 13) raises some interesting points of history that are worthy of full debate at the time a binding referendum is held on the issue of Maori only seats on our local councils. It would be good for example to have clarity of exactly what the principles of the Treaty are who drafted them. It would also be good to know where the concept of partnership originated because it is certainly not mentioned in the Treaty. It appears to be a political construct, for the benefit of politicians and vested interest groups.
On the matter of land confiscation, just 2.5% of New Zealand remained legally confiscated from rebelling tribes after 1928 and not ‘stolen’ as Mr Grose asserts. Other Maori lands were willingly sold which can be verified by Googling Turton’s Deeds (Victoria University).
In a changing society Maori embraced the ‘new’ culture with it’s many benefits, in particular some elders and statespersons lobbied the settler Government to forbid Maori to be spoken at schools.
The Maori Representation Act 1867 was an interim measure for five years because the Maori Land Court established in 1865 was expected to resolve land title issues for Maori within that time. The 1867 Act was extended in 1872, and extended again in 1876, this time indefinitely.
Universal suffrage, from 1893, extended voting rights to all New Zealanders, subject only to an age qualification. This meant any practical reason for separate Maori seats in Central Government disappeared. But separate seats continued, and this separate representation took on a life of its own as political parties courted Maori support.
Kevin makes some giant leaps of assumption when describing the process councillors went through to arrive at their decision to introduce. The key point is councillors consulted with iwi, but not kiwi. The public were never consulted on the matter and whatsmore none of the councillors stated as recently as a year ago that they were in favour of Maori wards or intended introducing a motion in favour of their creation.
RAEWYN MESSHAM, RD3 Whangarei
ENOUGH NONSENSE
I have drawn a line in the sand, and refuse to accept or respond to any further abuse from Wally Hicks, with his ongoing nonsense, such as the reference to my “brand of racistory (sic)” and the like (Sidestepping, letters January 14).
However, many readers will want to know why the question of female infanticide should be important in an understanding of our history. The full explanation is not possible in a letter such as this, but here are some salient points.
Census counts from 1857 on show a considerable decrease in Maori numbers, which steadily diminished in the period to 1890 (just 50 years from 1840), to be followed by increase. The surveys of those censuses and a number of regional counts by missionaries around 1840 showed a massive shortage of young, and a further shortage of girls and women – which had gone by the end of the century. That shortage of breeding stock assured the population decline, and was largely the cause. And it existed prior to colonisation.
There are many records of infanticide among early Maori; multiple references have been provided by historians such as Margaret Orbell, Claudia Orange and Paul Moon (as well as in my books). The practice of infanticide, and in particular female infanticide, was reported from both European and Maori sources. For example, when appearing before the House of Lords Committee in 1837-38, Nayti (of Ngati Toa) testified that Maori do sometimes kill their children.
JOHN ROBINSON, Waikanae
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
A CHANGING SOCIETY
Kevin Grose (letters Northern Advocate January 13) raises some interesting points of history that are worthy of full debate at the time a binding referendum is held on the issue of Maori only seats on our local councils. It would be good for example to have clarity of exactly what the principles of the Treaty are who drafted them. It would also be good to know where the concept of partnership originated because it is certainly not mentioned in the Treaty. It appears to be a political construct, for the benefit of politicians and vested interest groups.
On the matter of land confiscation, just 2.5% of New Zealand remained legally confiscated from rebelling tribes after 1928 and not ‘stolen’ as Mr Grose asserts. Other Maori lands were willingly sold which can be verified by Googling Turton’s Deeds (Victoria University).
In a changing society Maori embraced the ‘new’ culture with it’s many benefits, in particular some elders and statespersons lobbied the settler Government to forbid Maori to be spoken at schools.
The Maori Representation Act 1867 was an interim measure for five years because the Maori Land Court established in 1865 was expected to resolve land title issues for Maori within that time. The 1867 Act was extended in 1872, and extended again in 1876, this time indefinitely.
Universal suffrage, from 1893, extended voting rights to all New Zealanders, subject only to an age qualification. This meant any practical reason for separate Maori seats in Central Government disappeared. But separate seats continued, and this separate representation took on a life of its own as political parties courted Maori support.
Kevin makes some giant leaps of assumption when describing the process councillors went through to arrive at their decision to introduce. The key point is councillors consulted with iwi, but not kiwi. The public were never consulted on the matter and whatsmore none of the councillors stated as recently as a year ago that they were in favour of Maori wards or intended introducing a motion in favour of their creation.
RAEWYN MESSHAM, RD3 Whangarei
ENOUGH NONSENSE
I have drawn a line in the sand, and refuse to accept or respond to any further abuse from Wally Hicks, with his ongoing nonsense, such as the reference to my “brand of racistory (sic)” and the like (Sidestepping, letters January 14).
However, many readers will want to know why the question of female infanticide should be important in an understanding of our history. The full explanation is not possible in a letter such as this, but here are some salient points.
Census counts from 1857 on show a considerable decrease in Maori numbers, which steadily diminished in the period to 1890 (just 50 years from 1840), to be followed by increase. The surveys of those censuses and a number of regional counts by missionaries around 1840 showed a massive shortage of young, and a further shortage of girls and women – which had gone by the end of the century. That shortage of breeding stock assured the population decline, and was largely the cause. And it existed prior to colonisation.
There are many records of infanticide among early Maori; multiple references have been provided by historians such as Margaret Orbell, Claudia Orange and Paul Moon (as well as in my books). The practice of infanticide, and in particular female infanticide, was reported from both European and Maori sources. For example, when appearing before the House of Lords Committee in 1837-38, Nayti (of Ngati Toa) testified that Maori do sometimes kill their children.
JOHN ROBINSON, Waikanae
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor