Settling Maori claims. Someone explain. [Archive] - Page 2

Mr Merde

8th July 2009, 02:27

Hey

I haven't read this thread, well I read some of the first page. To all those people that have left New Zealand because they are sick of 'getting treated like a second class citizen', Thanks for leaving!

Regards
Matthew

Isnt it a policy of the current government to attempt to encourage those persons who have left, to come home.

Hasnt it been shown that our country is losing the sort of people that we cant afford to see gone. Those with skills and experience that is of benifit to our country, the professional persons, the doctors, nurses, university graduates, scientists, entrepeneurs etc.

There used to be a saying when I was young

"NZ, love it or leave it"

I left after 25 years away I realised that the saying, in my case was the wrong way round.

It should have been (for me)

NZ, leave it to love it"

It is painful to me to see the country I do love so much in the situation it is in now. There is more tension and fear here than I have seen in a lot of the countries I have visited during my 25 years away.

When I came back I was supprised at the number of people who once they felt easier in my company openly responded to to topical events with the phrase

"Come the revolution......."

Healthy debate is good, very good.

Emotional rhetoric is counter productive.

I know which I would rahter hear.

Chris

Katman

8th July 2009, 08:34

talk to those who dedicate their lives to defending the Treaty

I can't help but wonder how many of those people "dedicating their lives to defending the Treaty" are in fact more interested in the huge income they derive from the whole claims process.

I bet the lawyers involved don't ever want to see the process completed.

The Stranger

8th July 2009, 09:12

Havent been on KB for a while. Your right this kind of thing spurs a semi "tut tut" response but usually not one Im bothered to reply on. Guess I havent been on for a while, and this was the first thread Ive read on KB for a month or so so my usual awarness was heightened. Also had a death an attended a tangi couple weeks back so might be more sensitive than I thought :)

Let's face it we all are on issues dear to us.
However, from my perspective, I too am disappointed by this thread.

Despite all of the background noise, I frequently find my views challenged and moulded by argument (debate) on KB. I was hoping this would be the case here also.

Interestingly the only ones who have really helped with a Maori perspective are jrandom and Winston001.

So yes, disappointing, but it does cut both ways. Wild unsubstantiated accusations are always going to attract disbelief and derision.
People are simply deluding themselves if they expect to be taken seriously when they do this.

oldrider

8th July 2009, 10:32

I can't help but wonder how many of those people "dedicating their lives to defending the Treaty" are in fact more interested in the huge income they derive from the whole claims process.

I bet the lawyers involved don't ever want to see the process completed.

Interesting point Katman, did the rabbit boards ever get rid of the rabbits!

If it was a perfect world, what would religious healers, sickness healers, crime preventers, etc etc do with themselves?

Confucius said, "when you open a window you are bound to let in a few flies", such is life.

Trump-lady: My intention was simply to hold up a mirror to you for a moment.

You are entitled to your opinion and moment of free speech, just like every other poster on here.

I think it is healthy that people are able to feel free to say what they like and if anyone takes offence it is within their own control to be offended or not.

KB is voluntary after all nobody can force anyone to be here reading and posting! :niceone:

doc

8th July 2009, 18:22

I'm not racist, but I'm disappointed by those who of the maori race seem to keep on wanting things that the Treaty wasn't about. FFS airwaves and fishing stuff that was way beyond their capeablities. They dont seem to accept that improvements to their lifestyle also have a cost. For people that had no technology and history that was past on by folklore.

They were living a stoneage existence and were heading for extinction.

Im just your average working class bloke no advanced education and my opinions are just simple view from mixing with Maori everyday, very few of them are actually supportive of the Treaty in fact some of them shun the ones who at work claim everything back attitude, as lazy losers, and the claimant types are actually the lazy ones at work. :crazy:

Quasievil

8th July 2009, 18:32

awayatc

8th July 2009, 18:32

Yep......
problem isn't so much with people asking for a handout....
real problem is having a system there that caters for it....

wbks

8th July 2009, 18:51

Bonez

8th July 2009, 20:04

Looking at the Tags on this thread I can clearly see why attitudes inflame the situations not calm it.
Wonder why Maori have attitudes? prolly cause the country is full of dickhead rednecks as illustrated below.........funny that those same people think themselves as so much better than anyone with different colour skin.As Katman mentioned about shades of grey. For goodness sake. This is KB. Plenty here that like the stir the pot to get a reaction. You don't know who posted the tags. What a pathethic rant.

As the above poster said it could be because of past experiances. I'll give you an example- The 4 major bullies at our primary school(which went up to form two at the time) were Maori. All are dead now due to their lifestyle/outlook on life. In saying that best freinds at primary school where also Maori, their perents refered to as uncle and aunty, as all the perents were refered to in our area at the time. These expereince stick with you for the rest of your life. I was also assulted by a Maori at work for no particular reason other than looking at him at the wrong time having the rightside of my cheek bone fractured and rotated 3mm from its original position. This wasn't the first time he'd assulted someone. A fellow Maori prior to that so his agression wasn't race specific. When asked what punishment I'd like him to have I stated anger management as jail was not going to change him one iota. He got 3 months anyway. A fair sentence for permanently altering my face? I'll let you decide. Do I blame all Maori for what happened- no. But it does make you wary. Same goes for other folk that have been put in the same situation.

Another example, my wifes wallet was was stolen along with her identity. Turns out it was some Maori chick. Police finally nabbed her. Took Connie 5 years to clear her name of the shit this bitch did, overdrafts, maxed out her credit card etc. It left a bitter taste in her mouth. With her carving, and the nice folk shes met since she's finaly gotten over it.

Solly

8th July 2009, 21:07

I'm not racist......I hate everyone equally ;)

Bonez

8th July 2009, 21:09

I'm not racist......I hate everyone equally ;)Bling going your way :pinch:

ynot slow

8th July 2009, 21:19

Went to school as most have with maori people,the thing strikes me about educational stuff is one family had the idea leave at 15yrs and go to the freezing works and retire at 60.Another family had all kids in top echelon at school,they all had same oportunity as all,turned out to have several self employed members in family.Others were happy to stuff around,they are still hopeless.Know of one family they had twins and I went through primary and high school with them,they had euro names (Craig,Rodney,John etc)now they are TeKau...,and have taken their ancesters names,good on them,but their mum is so anti white folk she borders on stupidity,her kids have all done well in our white system.But she is ok to stay in our white hospitals which have polarised her people.

scumdog

8th July 2009, 21:22

I'm not racist......I hate everyone equally

;)

And conversly I'm every 'ist' you can think of!!:msn-wink:

Solly

8th July 2009, 21:23

98tls

8th July 2009, 21:23

Solly

8th July 2009, 21:25

And conversly I'm every 'ist' you can think of!!:msn-wink:

Especially P-ist:laugh:

Bonez

8th July 2009, 21:40

Especially P-ist:laugh:Ingredients available at every corner store. No ID required.

Solly

8th July 2009, 21:51

Ingredients available at every corner store. No ID required.

Ooops.......didn't mean it like that :crazy:....P-ist as in [pissed]

Bonez

8th July 2009, 22:07

Ooops.......didn't mean it like that :crazy:....P-ist as in [pissed]Figured as much but other sensitive souls may have needed varification.;)

Solly

8th July 2009, 22:15

Figured as much but other sensitive souls may have needed varification.;)

Haha...there's plenty of those lurking on this thread ;)

Quasievil

8th July 2009, 22:41

;)
As Katman mentioned about shades of grey. For goodness sake. This is KB. Plenty here that like the stir the pot to get a reaction. You don't know who posted the tags. What a pathethic rant.

As the above poster said it could be because of past experiances. I'll give you an example- The 4 major bullies at our primary school(which went up to form two at the time) were Maori. All are dead now due to their lifestyle/outlook on life. In saying that best freinds at primary school where also Maori, their perents refered to as uncle and aunty, as all the perents were refered to in our area at the time. These expereince stick with you for the rest of your life. I was also assulted by a Maori at work for no particular reason other than looking at him at the wrong time having the rightside of my cheek bone fractured and rotated 3mm from its original position. This wasn't the first time he'd assulted someone. A fellow Maori prior to that so his agression wasn't race specific. When asked what punishment I'd like him to have I stated anger management as jail was not going to change him one iota. He got 3 months anyway. A fair sentence for permanently altering my face? I'll let you decide. Do I blame all Maori for what happened- no. But it does make you wary. Same goes for other folk that have been put in the same situation.

Another example, my wifes wallet was was stolen along with her identity. Turns out it was some Maori chick. Police finally nabbed her. Took Connie 5 years to clear her name of the shit this bitch did, overdrafts, maxed out her credit card etc. It left a bitter taste in her mouth. With her carving, and the nice folk shes met since she's finaly gotten over it.

So whats the answer for the country as a country? do we use your examples conclude (like it looks you have) that Maori are all bad and shoot your fellow countrymen?
I dont tolerate anti NZr slander from anyone and bagging Maori is anti NZ, as the result of bagging Maori or any group and putting them down is not good for this country despite their over representation in negative stats.

The ONLY way to improve this countries race issue is to do what we are doing going through process and adjusting the social dependency on the government (taxpayer) handouts (for non Maori to)

sorry to many anti Maori on here, I think its sad but hey as pointed out its KB and I dont expect much better actually anyway so who gives a fuck what ya say lol......................anyway :yawn:

Bonez

8th July 2009, 22:45

;)

Do we use your examples conclude (like it looks you have) that Maori are all bad and shoot your fellow countrymen?Humour me. Did you note the bit about "Do I blame all Maori for what happened-no"? Obviously not. :bash: Experiances like I described do tend to harden the heart though. Whether you like it or not that is a reality.:psst:

The sooner the "greivence industry" is rapped up the better.:jerry:

98tls

8th July 2009, 22:49

u4ea

8th July 2009, 23:05

;)

I dont tolerate anti NZr slander from anyone and bagging Maori is anti NZ, as the result of bagging Maori or any group and putting them down is not good for this country despite their over representation in negative stats.

I feel bagged everytime Im called a Pakeha.

The ONLY way to improve this countries race issue is to do what we are doing going through process and adjusting the social dependency on the government (taxpayer) handouts (for non Maori to)

Agree there

sorry to many anti Maori on here, I think its sad but hey as pointed out its KB and I dont expect much better actually anyway so who gives a fuck what ya say lol......................anyway :yawn:

I know my ancestory in NZ and it isnt respected by the majority of maori ,by them I am merely labelled Pakeha through their ignorance. I have some seriuosly close maori freinds . I am an aunty of my part maori neices and nefews (not too mention I am a great aunty). Get rid of the treaty .It is seperatist. One rule for everyone. Work hard play harder.
Have actually said to a maori chick who was hasseling a mate one night at a local bar..if I cut your throat your blood is the same colour as mine..

98tls

8th July 2009, 23:09

I know my ancestory in NZ and it isnt respected by the majority of maori ,by them I am merely labelled Pakeha through their ignorance. I have some seriuosly close maori freinds . I am an aunty of my part maori neices and nefews (not too mention I am a great aunty). Get rid of the treaty .It is seperatist. One rule for everyone. Work hard play harder.
Have actually said to a maori chick who was hasseling a mate one night at a local bar..if I cut your throat your blood is the same colour as mine.. Out of interest what was her reply?Interesting post.

u4ea

8th July 2009, 23:15

Out of interest what was her reply?Interesting post.

Ahem.. 5 maori chicks walked in to said bar and we offered the end of the table to them. When I went to the loo they would start on my mate.She was short and petite. I asked her why she was freaking out and she told me. So when she went to the loo I sat down next to the biggest chick and asked her how her night was going..then said what I said..all 5 of them got up and walked out.

oldrider

9th July 2009, 00:43

;)

So whats the answer for the country as a country? do we use your examples conclude (like it looks you have) that Maori are all bad and shoot your fellow countrymen?
I dont tolerate anti NZr slander from anyone and bagging Maori is anti NZ, as the result of bagging Maori or any group and putting them down is not good for this country despite their over representation in negative stats.

The ONLY way to improve this countries race issue is to do what we are doing going through process and adjusting the social dependency on the government (taxpayer) handouts (for non Maori to)

sorry to many anti Maori on here, I think its sad but hey as pointed out its KB and I dont expect much better actually anyway so who gives a fuck what ya say lol......................anyway :yawn:

To those who might be even slightly interested:

In my late twenties I lived in a predominantly Maori area and spent a lot of my time with fluent Maori speaking people.

Consequently I learned to understand Maori language, even though I couldn't speak it. (39 years ago, lost that ability now)

If everyone was speaking Maori, I would just reply in English, they noticed that I was doing it but it hadn't even really occurred to me!

They thought it was funny and on one occasion a Maori guy unknown to me, appeared and as I was the only Pakeha there he was going on about me in Maori.

Every body started laughing and he thought it was in support of what he was saying so he got bolder and bolder, the more they laughed.

It was the only such incident I ever experienced, it didn't bother me and I eventually had to leave to go to work.

He tried to hold the floor after I left and then they told him that I understood everything he was saying!

He realised that he was the butt of their laughter, not me, apparently he left soon after me.

These were fantastic people and really good friends, they thought it was a great joke.

Most of them sadly have moved on now but some of their children are still there.

The area was Waikaremona, inland from Wairoa in Hawkes Bay.

Some of the best times of my life were spent up there, things have sure changed in NZ but I still live in hope for our future!

Bonez

9th July 2009, 00:52

Some of the best times of my life were spent up there, things have sure changed in NZ but I still live in hope for our future!So true. Nice story. Dads grandparents lived in Wairoa. Best mates loved huhu grubs. Dammed if I could eat them now.

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 07:29

;)
sorry to many anti Maori on here,

Actually this seems to pretty much be the answer to any discussion on Maori for some reason. i.e. I don't agree with you ergo I am anti maori and thus racist.
If you "really" do want to get on as you proclaim then tollerate the views of others as you would expect of them.

Genestho

9th July 2009, 07:39

Hmmmm, I agree with The stranger, we can't agree so therefore we're anti Maori? Come on mate?

Can someone in the know, please assure me that the claims process will sort out, the ills from 200 hundred years ago, that have direct violent impact on lives now?

Will it change anything? IMHO, I think not.
But hey, get it done so the festering sore starts to heal

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 08:43

Hmmmm, I agree with The stranger, we can't agree so therefore we're anti Maori? Come on mate?

Maori Bashin is something thats not agreeable period and its not a view, its evil and has been expressed and excercised in many countries around the world and Im fucked if I will tolerate it in my country.

opinions expressed here which are focused on solving the issues are fine but if they are laced with Anti Maori sediment then Its simply wrong and thats the end of it.

Anyway Im sure I am correct in saying that most of the tags and anti Maori shit expressed isnt believed by the writer, as I said its KB and its all about soapboxing until someone writes what they truly believe, and there is only a few of us in this category

Finn

9th July 2009, 08:47

Maori Bashin is something thats not agreeable period and its not a view, its evil and has been expressed and excercised in many countries around the world and Im fucked if I will tolerate it in my country.

When did it become your country white boy? :whistle:

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 09:12

When did it become your country white boy? :whistle:

lol You know what I mean funny fucker, where is me Video ?

Anyway this thread is getting to serious for me, I tend to rub people up the wrong way when I get stuck into a debate so will tone it down, its KB ffs

Mr Merde

9th July 2009, 09:15

....... its KB ffs .......

This to me sums up this whole site and most of this forum

wbks

9th July 2009, 09:19

lol You know what I mean funny fucker, where is me Video ?

Anyway this thread is getting to serious for me, I tend to rub people up the wrong way when I get stuck into a debate so will tone it down, its KB ffsNot trying to make personal cracks, but it seems like as soon as someone disagrees with what you say in this topic you just label them racist rednecks, which tends to turn people sour

jrandom

9th July 2009, 09:22

it seems like as soon as someone disagrees with what you say in this topic you just label them racist rednecks

... but disagreement with Quasi's position does kinda make one a racist redneck, y'know. He's just saying it like it is.

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 09:26

Not trying to make personal cracks, but it seems like as soon as someone disagrees with what you say in this topic you just label them racist rednecks, which tends to turn people sour

no mate:oi-grr:, some remarks are of that kind I havent called anyone that

anyway to be clear Im all about peace bro !! :hug: its all about love baby all about love...................something we can all use a dose of

wbks

9th July 2009, 09:26

... but disagreement with Quasi's position does kinda make one a racist redneck, y'know. He's just saying it like it is.I just said that I don't think racism in NZ is a one way street, which he probably doesn't disagree with, but it looked like it from his post. I'm a redneck?

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 09:28

I just said that I don't think racism in NZ is a one way street, which he probably doesn't disagree with, but it looked like it from his post. I'm a redneck?

Oh I agree with that allright dont you worry

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 09:29

... but disagreement with Quasi's position does kinda make one a racist redneck, y'know. He's just saying it like it is.

So if he disagrees with my position does that make him racist?

jrandom

9th July 2009, 09:30

I just said that I don't think racism in NZ is a one way street, which he probably doesn't disagree with, but it looked like it from his post.

As you see above, he doesn't disagree with that at all.

I'm a redneck?

No; stupidity is a prerequisite.

jrandom

9th July 2009, 09:31

So if he disagrees with my position does that make him racist?

What is your position? Other than 'doggy style', that is.

idb

9th July 2009, 09:59

There are f*#kwits in any race, the trick is to see past them to the bigger picture.

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 10:07

There are f*#kwits in any race, the trick is to see past them to the bigger picture.

That sums it up fairly easily I reckon.

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 15:16

What is your position?

My position is that during an argument involving racial issues disagreement with one's position or argument does not necessarily consititute racism.
I further contend that if a party does play the race card at such times (as it is clearly an argument based on race) then they are showing racism.

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 16:15

My position is that during an argument involving racial issues disagreement with one's position or argument does not necessarily consititute racism.
I further contend that if a party does play the race card at such times (as it is clearly an argument based on race) then they are showing racism.

:wacko:So wahts your position, Im a bit thick lol

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 16:58

:wacko:So wahts your position, Im a bit thick lol

There have been many issues raised in this thread.

First off I'm not fucken racist! Even though I may have the gall to ask questions.

I believe that land illegally confiscated should be returned.
I believe that items such as air waves which were not known or conceived to be in existence at the time and thus no provision was made for in the treaty should belong to the crown. Note that the crown does represent us all including Maori thus your ideal of all getting on with each other is so much closer than if 2 (or more) classes of citizen are created. Ditto such things as the sea bed and foreshore unless "specifically" envisioned and covered by the treaty.

I would be happy for you to expand further upon how "we" have caused Maori to be over represented in crime. You levelled an accusation, then when questioned or rebuttal was offered declined to substantiate it. This helps your position not a whit.

Now that covers off a part of the discussion raised in this thread. I am happy to clarify my view on any other points.
It should also be noted that NONE of the above is racist and none of it is an opinion cast in stone. However I would hope for a better rebuttal than "you're racist".

Finn

9th July 2009, 17:00

First off I'm not fucken racist!

So do you not agree that contraception should be added to KFC?

jrandom

9th July 2009, 17:05

So do you not agree with contraception being added to KFC?

Wouldn't bother those of us who've had our vasectomies already.

Om nom nom nom!

Actually, if it really were possible for fried chicken to be an effective contraceptive, surely KFC would instantly gain about 93% market share?

Bonez

9th July 2009, 17:08

Wouldn't bother those of us who've had our vasectomies already.

Om nom nom nom!Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, moa burgers....................

popelli

9th July 2009, 17:10

Bonez

9th July 2009, 17:41

I believe that items such as air waves which were not known or conceived to be in existence at the time and thus no provision was made for in the treaty should belong to the crown. Note that the crown does represent us all including Maori thus your ideal of all getting on with each other is so much closer than if 2 (or more) classes of citizen are created. Ditto such things as the sea bed and foreshore unless "specifically" envisioned and covered by the treaty..Here's translations and drafts of the original-

http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse.htm

Interesting read.

Jantar

9th July 2009, 17:50

so according to some people on this thread anybody who questions the waitangi treaty process or is not 100% pro treaty is by default anti maori and a racist

these sort of attitudes do not foster intelligent discussion of issues

Unfortunately, racism will continue to flourish in New Zealand for as long as it is enshrined in our laws. It is only when every mention of race of any kind is removed from our legislation that racism will have any chance of dying out. This means that ever time the words "Maori, Pakeha, European, Somoan, Tongan" etc appear, they should be replaced with the single term "Person".

One law for all, one voice for all.

steve_t

9th July 2009, 17:56

Unfortunately, racism will continue to flourish in New Zealand for as long as it is enshrined in our laws. It is only when every mention of race of any kind is removed from our legislation that racism will have any chance of dying out. This means that ever time the words "Maori, Pakeha, European, Somoan, Tongan" etc appear, they should be replaced with the single term "Person".

One law for all, one voice for all.

That makes too much sense... what then would people complain about? :girlfight:

Deano

9th July 2009, 18:28

That makes too much sense... what then would people complain about? :girlfight:

Ahh the irony of that emoticon. 2 different coloured people bitchslapping each other in a never ending, no win fight.

Quasievil

9th July 2009, 18:34

First off I'm not fucken racist! Even though I may have the gall to ask questions.

I believe that land illegally confiscated should be returned.
I believe that items such as air waves which were not known or conceived to be in existence at the time and thus no provision was made for in the treaty should belong to the crown. Note that the crown does represent us all including Maori thus your ideal of all getting on with each other is so much closer than if 2 (or more) classes of citizen are created. Ditto such things as the sea bed and foreshore unless "specifically" envisioned and covered by the treaty.

I would be happy for you to expand further upon how "we" have caused Maori to be over represented in crime. You levelled an accusation, then when questioned or rebuttal was offered declined to substantiate it. This helps your position not a whit.

Now that covers off a part of the discussion raised in this thread. I am happy to clarify my view on any other points.
It should also be noted that NONE of the above is racist and none of it is an opinion cast in stone. However I would hope for a better rebuttal than "you're racist".

I just didn't understand your post is what I meant.

I didn't call you a racists and I dont believe I called anyone a racist infact I dont think I was the originator of the words racists or redneck in this entire thread. But there is alot of typical bag the Maori crap on this thread which is typically redneck B.S though I doubt half of it is actually meant.

I agree entirely with your comments above also.

And I Stick completely to everything I have said...............completely!! and to reiterate my whole point, if the Courts said that Maori are entitled to bring the Foreshore and seabed issue to court then they fucking have the right to, end of story, period, job done..............if they get anything fine, if they dont fine, you wont see me getting upset about it or even raising a eyebrow cause I dont care, its process baby thats what is happening here in NZ and we should be happy about it.

What I wont tolerate in N.Z is Anti Maori blah blah blah which seems like a second language amongst so many in this country, if that labels you (which it dont) or anyone else as a redneck racist, it was not me that labelled you thats for sure.

But I dont intend getting worked up about this shit on KB its KB for fuck sake, me and everyone else is on a soap box debating a lot of shit which will end in no conclusion as always but thats my view and take it or leave it.

Now I need to find where I said that "we have caused Maori to be over represented in crime cause I dont recall saying that.

love you;)

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 20:35

Here's translations and drafts of the original-

http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse.htm

Interesting read.

FARK!
Dare I ask, are you aware of a rebuttal to that?

Winston001

9th July 2009, 21:46

Not trying to make personal cracks, but it seems like as soon as someone disagrees with what you say in this topic you just label them racist rednecks, which tends to turn people sour

Actually I think the only supporter here of Maori who used that term was Hospitalfood. :oi-grr:

A few pages back I posted issues which bring Maori into disrespect. No-one called that racist.

The real misunderstanding is to see this as being about race. It's not. The Treaty process, Maori renaissance, and political activism, these are all about cultural survival. Maori are numerically and economically a minority. If they don't step up.....they'll disappear.

And we will all be the poorer for that.

Solly

9th July 2009, 21:50

Soooooooooo......do we have an answer to the origional question yet????

Mr Merde

9th July 2009, 21:58

Soooooooooo......do we have an answer to the origional question yet????

Did you expect one? I didnt.

From what i have seen here on KB in this post is exactly what has been posted in so many threads previously.

Its exactly what happens outside of KB also.

Lots of posturing. Lots of people labelling anyone who doesnt agree with their viewpoint, as either racist or redneck.

Valid points on both sides but both pretty much refusing to acknowledge the others view.

A few people comming out with sound ideas but getting drowned out by the noise from the opposing viewpoints.

Pathetic isnt it.

Chris

The Stranger

9th July 2009, 22:17

Did you expect one? I didnt.

From what i have seen here on KB in this post is exactly what has been posted in so many threads previously.

Its exactly what happens outside of KB also.

Lots of posturing. Lots of people labelling anyone who doesnt agree with their viewpoint, as either racist or redneck.

Valid points on both sides but both pretty much refusing to acknowledge the others view.

A few people comming out with sound ideas but getting drowned out by the noise from the opposing viewpoints.

Pathetic isnt it.

Chris

I'd be quite happy if this is what happens outside of KB also.
I know I have learnt a lot. I don't see the gaining of knowledge as pathetic.

If people disagree then agree to disagree that is a damn good start. Who knows, in time they may begin to agree.

Molly

9th July 2009, 22:18

Did you expect one? I didnt.

From what i have seen here on KB in this post is exactly what has been posted in so many threads previously.

Its exactly what happens outside of KB also.

Lots of posturing. Lots of people labelling anyone who doesnt agree with their viewpoint, as either racist or redneck.

Valid points on both sides but both pretty much refusing to acknowledge the others view.

A few people comming out with sound ideas but getting drowned out by the noise from the opposing viewpoints.

Pathetic isnt it.

Chris

Well, it's been insightful but not in the way I'd expected. It does seem that 'settlement' (whatever that is taken to mean) is like an open sore. If nothing else, at least the Kiwis seem to handle the matter with a measure of openness and honesty absent from similar discussions in some countries I can think of.

oldrider

9th July 2009, 22:20

Soooooooooo......do we have an answer to the origional question yet????

How about:....(February 1840)....He iwi tahi tatau!....We are now one people!....Work in progress! :niceone:

mossy1200

9th July 2009, 22:30

Soooooooooo......do we have an answer to the origional question yet????
The answer is it will never end.
Reason is a final settlement is only final until another tribe gets a larger settlement.When this happens then your tribe can bring forward the fact that your tribe was disproportionally paid a figure that was not large enough.
This is the maori version of inflation as the 3year old settlement will always be smaller than the fresh settlement so the cycle of low settlements never stops.
Where the money goes no one knows..

Deano

10th July 2009, 08:05

The answer is it will never end.
Reason is a final settlement is only final until another tribe gets a larger settlement.When this happens then your tribe can bring forward the fact that your tribe was disproportionally paid a figure that was not large enough.

This to me is the fly in the ointment and quite ridiculous.

I believe that at least in some areas things ARE improving for Maori. Certainly in education.

I don't know about crime or health stats, but I assume (dare I) that Maori are progressing in these areas as well. The improvements in education will certainly have an impact on these two areas.

Once Maori are not so disproportionately represented, then maybe we can start to back off on all the race based legislation that caters more to them than any other people in NZ.

This may be idealistic and would probably take another 200 years or so, but for now we just have to keep on keeping on.

I think silly proposals that have occurred (Pita Sharples - no tertiary prerequisite for Maori, Maori not having to register their dogs cause they are Taonga, and various others) tend to sour our relationship and make us think that all Maori are just out for what they can get.

And given this country's history of handouts (not just to Maori), who can really blame (some of) them for taking all that they can get. They have been conditioned to do so.

Solly

10th July 2009, 19:23

Yeah Yeah Ya Ya Ya.......

Brownstoo

10th July 2009, 19:45

Not meant to stir up a load of anti-anybody anything but just want to ask about the Maori land / financial settlements I see in the news from time to time. Particularly:

Is there an end in sight?
What happens to the money? Does it benefit or support Maori communities or individuals directly and in what way?
Where does the money come from? Surely one generation of Kiwis couldn't afford to settle long-standing, historic claims out of public money / their taxes?

No end in sight till people stop guilt tripping out and letting the fuckers take advantage of our general naive good naturedness.
The money comes from your pocket. If it doesn't come from taxes where the hell else would it come from? I mean they're being compensated for white people being here in the first place.
The money goes to corrupt maori fat cats.

Deano

10th July 2009, 20:52

Yeah Yeah Ya Ya Ya.......

Wasn't it "yep yep yep yep" with a big sigh ?

Or are you talking the Asian Arnold ?

Or was it too long ago to care.

Solly

10th July 2009, 21:14

Wasn't it "yep yep yep yep" with a big sigh ?

Or are you talking the Asian Arnold ?

Or was it too long ago to care.

You got it.....

Not too long at all......just enough to still remember the good stuff:niceone:

junkmanjoe

10th July 2009, 21:23

in the topic of land clames.

my old boss was leasing land of the maori.

and he started to dig out the pit metal, and take it away.
this is the good part.
a year later, they come back and ask where there land has gone....:clap:
it cost him heaps...

Solly

10th July 2009, 21:44

.......and he started to dig out the pit metal, and take it away....

What the hell is "pit metal"????

oldrider

10th July 2009, 21:50

Not meant to stir up a load of anti-anybody anything but just want to ask about the Maori land / financial settlements I see in the news from time to time. Particularly:

Is there an end in sight?
What happens to the money? Does it benefit or support Maori communities or individuals directly and in what way?
Where does the money come from? Surely one generation of Kiwis couldn't afford to settle long-standing, historic claims out of public money / their taxes?

Soooooooooo......do we have an answer to the origional question yet????

When Solly posted his question I thought it was Molly the original poster asking the question, Solly about that Molly!

So Molly, (the original) are you any wiser or further ahead on the topics of your questions, as a result of your thread?

Molly

10th July 2009, 21:54

So Molly, (the original) are you any wiser or further ahead on the topics of your questions, as a result of your thread?

Just really as I said in post 315:

It's been insightful but not in the way I'd expected. It does seem that 'settlement' (whatever that is taken to mean) is like an open sore. If nothing else, at least the Kiwis seem to handle the matter with a measure of openness and honesty absent from similar discussions in some countries I can think of.

Solly

10th July 2009, 21:58

When Solly posted his question I thought it was Molly the original poster asking the question, Solly about that Molly!

So Molly, (the original) are you any wiser or further ahead on the topics of your questions, as a result of your thread?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:....I think were all confused now :clap::clap:

Deano

10th July 2009, 21:59

What the hell is "pit metal"????

Does it have something to do with moshing ?:headbang:

oldrider

11th July 2009, 00:10

If you use Feb 1840 (the treaty)as a stake in the ground and read history (such as it is) backwards, then come back to the treaty.

You will appreciate the reason for the treaty. (so many men, so many opinions)

It's like a game of rugby, it's the same game but everyone sees it from a different position and perspective.

Every individuals perspective is flavoured by which team they think they are supporting as well.

The treaty was not a game and there were multiple players involved not just simply two teams and not very many of them were aligned with each other.

It is too simple to just think of it as being between two definite groups, Maori and and the British Crown. (Pakeha)

There are/were many copies and versions of the treaty document floating around and as a consequence many claims of which is the original, depending on what was required from the document.

I believe (and can stand correction) that the version written for the Maori language (there was no true written language for Maori) has been declared and agreed to be the official copy.

This is the copy that the collective Iwi got their information from and was the one that they understood!

The Treaty is a founding document, a stake in the ground, a point of time to move forward from as "one people, one land".

The progress made in the last 169 years has been pretty remarkable considering how many distractions (World wars, economic booms busts etc) have been placed in the way.

Iwi are even yet far from united and have many unresolved grievances registered with the Waitangi tribunal.

Simply because the chiefs signed the treaty, it didn't mean they were united and agreed with each other, there was much history between Iwi to overcome.

Equally on the settlers side there were multiple groups, nationalities, religious interest etc to contend with, all wanting outcomes according to their own specific needs and requirements.

The Crown was served by delegation of existing British political and governance methodology and systems for the young and growing society of New Zealand.

The collective tribes or Iwi, had no written language or united governance systems etc to fall back on, so they went with British Crown.

What I have tried to convey to those who think that the colonisation of New Zealand was a simple matter between two distinct groups of people is that they are mistaken and that notion is a myth.

The Maori as they are now referred to were and always have been, deeply divided and distinct tribes or Iwi and none regard any of the others any greater status than themselves.

I think there were over 52 signatory Chiefs that signed the Treaty Of Waitangi and even then some would not and did not ever sign it.

The fact that we have got this far as a nation in 169 years is absolutely remarkable and something that we all as the people of the land should be absolutely proud of.

I thought I could write this up briefly but there is just too much and there will still be those who say I am way off the mark anyway.

I just hope it is of some value in the discussion of this thread.

Forgive me if it is not.

Winston001

11th July 2009, 14:04

John - that is an outstanding post. Chur bro. :niceone:

Winston001

11th July 2009, 14:17

It's been insightful but not in the way I'd expected. It does seem that 'settlement' (whatever that is taken to mean) is like an open sore. If nothing else, at least the Kiwis seem to handle the matter with a measure of openness and honesty absent from similar discussions in some countries I can think of.

I'm curious that "an open sore" is the impression you get although there are plenty of negative comments here. By the way, good discussion and thanks for starting it.:niceone:

My own impression is that in NZ the treaty settlement process has become a background issue. Most people don't think about it anymore and that is at least partly because the actual settlements don't harm the general population.

In fact in some cases, iwi have given land back or created a public reserve. Its the recognition of wrong they needed, not wealth and power.

John makes a very strong point that Maori were not and are not a united group. They squabble and scrap just like the scottish clans and for that reason alone, true settlement may be a long way off.

Winston001

11th July 2009, 14:31

Many people want to know when this will all end. Is there a final point. Personally I think not soon.

There is a "treaty grievance industry". Some people think its just about money but thats not it. The few activists (including white liberals) I know of have no wealth at all.

However since the late 1970s, is a whole maori renaissance has arisen. Places like Waikato University are a hotbed of activism. The people who emerge are young, educated, passionate, filled with a sense of righting wrongs. The Waitangi Tribunal and the Maori Party gives them a focus for their energy.

That's produced a generation of people who rely on the settlement process to give meaning to their lives. For them to be told the Waitangi Tribunal will cease in say, 2015, would be a blow to their ego and life purpose.

Maybe the Tribunal will have to shift to settling maori disputes like the Maori Land Court has done already for generations. For example, urban maori who do not belong to an iwi miss out at the moment.

jono035

11th July 2009, 19:20

Some of the recent turns made by the Maori party are unfortunate (separate court system and unlimited university entrance for instance) as they had some very interesting and progressive ideas earlier on.

I know a lot of people who have gone through university and feel as though they got a raw deal because they fell through cracks a little. Parents making just enough money for them to get student allowance, but not enough to be able to help out with their university costs. People watching the Maori and Pacific Island students getting full scholarships (including some students who were 1/16th Maori for instance) and feeling like they are being subjected to racism in the reverse sense. None of this is good for the cause of 'equality' at all.

Personally I see the problems and definitely think that something needs to be done to try raise the general education level (and thus have less people in prisons) especially with respect to the Maori/Pacific Islander populace, but have absolutely no idea how.

Molly

12th July 2009, 16:29

Personally I see the problems and definitely think that something needs to be done to try raise the general education level (and thus have less people in prisons) especially with respect to the Maori/Pacific Islander populace, but have absolutely no idea how.

It can be hard to motivate any student and free access to Uni. won't help with that endeavour. It could easily lead to less well educated young people since they'd no longer have to really try. I have students that constantly rock up late to class. When I ask them: "What time do you call this?" they sometimes reply: "Island time..."

Genestho

12th July 2009, 16:47

..... By the way, good discussion and thanks for starting it.:niceone:....

Interesting discussion indeed, quite often KB challenges my thinking and as always, never fails to educate me, and never in the way I expect it will!

But as posted earlier there is never a conclusion to a KB debate.

Good exercise though :bleh:

Thanks Winston (as always!!) for your contribution of unbiased facts.

Perceptions, ideas and opinions can often be taken as provocative, but healthy debate is always, and will always be good thing!

Unfortunately when you read this thread, it's fairly obvious that taking views or opinions onboard, personally inhibit healthy debate!

That said, this was an interesting read! :headbang:Cheers!

jono035

12th July 2009, 17:17

It can be hard to motivate any student and free access to Uni. won't help with that endeavour. It could easily lead to less well educated young people since they'd no longer have to really try. I have students that constantly rock up late to class. When I ask them: "What time do you call this?" they sometimes reply: "Island time..."

Yeah, I haven't really heard any methods that I agree with yet, I only know what the ultimate outcome needs to be. That's the easy part!

Winston001

12th July 2009, 19:40

Unfortunately when you read this thread, it's fairly obvious that taking views or opinions onboard, personally inhibit healthy debate!

The challenge in any discussion is to try and remove emotional words. For example here, the words "racist" and "redneck" are red flags which makes people angry - and fair enough too.

We should be able to criticise Maori without being immediately labelled with such flagrantly abusive terms. Not everything Maori is good or right.

I do think we can change peoples minds if arguments are explained quietly. Homosexual law reform is an example of change which was incomprehensible when I was a lad. (Still is....:devil2:)

peasea

12th July 2009, 21:29

I've been ratting through the 'celticnz' site and 'onenzfoundation' site as well as various sites pertaining to pre-Maori NZ and the Treaty of Waitangi etc.

Forget emotive/racist bollocks and ask yourself why so much of this stuff is suppressed. Why do successive governments prefer you to not be informed about what has become to be known as "The Littlewood Treaty". This is the genuine article, yet it is hardly in the spotlight.

Why do many iwi prevent carbon dating of ancient bones? Why does DOC bulldoze over ancient burial sites etc? Why have early history books that taught of pre-Maori settlements been removed from schools?

It takes quite a while to sift through what is on the above websites but the information opens the eyes to a different perspective/theory on our history.

It was Hobson who first coined the phrase "We are now one nation" and no matter how often you repeat it the fact remains that NZ is deeply divided.

Damned shame I reckon, I love this place and we do well in so many things. Imagine what a unified country could do!

oldrider

12th July 2009, 21:33

Not really on topic but may be of interest to people reading in this thread.

Quite some time ago I stopped to do something to my bike at Queenstown (Frankton) and sheltered in a small bus stop for a while.

Written in bold letters on the wall in paint was the following:

Aotearoa-"Land of the wrong white crowd".

I couldn't get over how much that comment affected me, it really pissed me off.

I still feel a bit pissed when I think about it, don't know why, just do.

Have to admit it is quite a good play on words though. :mellow:

wbks

12th July 2009, 22:11

Genestho

12th July 2009, 22:20

The challenge in any discussion is to try and remove emotional words. ......yep, I've learn't emotion has no place in a good debate!I do think we can change peoples minds if arguments are explained quietly. Homosexual law reform is an example of change which was incomprehensible when I was a lad. (Still is....:devil2:)

Phoaaarrr, you're getting controversial now squire!!!!! hehe..
Is that a new provocative thread I smell cooking?:devil2::clap:

Bonez

12th July 2009, 22:40

I did a google search of "the Littlewood treaty", and assuming that it's not fake, that seems pretty astonishing that it hasn't even been investigated even though it is clearly making some bold claims. I wouldn't believe so much about pre-maori NZ, though... Radiocarbon dating was very inaccurate last time I checked, and a site that is called "celtic NZ" seems a little biased.This is an interesting read

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/Rats.htm

Especialy the bit about blondies and redheads.

Mr Merde

12th July 2009, 23:01

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm

Try this site.

Go in with an open mind and just read the Radical History.

So many questions unanswered, so many coincedental facts.

peasea

13th July 2009, 07:07

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm

Try this site.

Go in with an open mind and just read the Radical History.

So many questions unanswered, so many coincedental facts.
Yes, my point exactly. Keep an open mind, so many people appear not to do so.

peasea

13th July 2009, 20:32

I did a google search of "the Littlewood treaty", and assuming that it's not fake, that seems pretty astonishing that it hasn't even been investigated even though it is clearly making some bold claims. I wouldn't believe so much about pre-maori NZ, though... Radiocarbon dating was very inaccurate last time I checked, and a site that is called "celtic NZ" seems a little biased.

Just as some maori sites are a "little biased" I would imagine.

I just want the facts put in the public arena, whether they prove Maori to have been the first here, the Chinese or Martians. I am simply curious as to the history of NZ and why so much is kept from public eyes. Who's hiding what and why?

peasea

13th July 2009, 20:34

scumdog

13th July 2009, 21:28

"Land of the wrong white crowd"; I wonder; was that written by an Asian perhaps?

Velly Rikely!

Bonez

13th July 2009, 22:00

"Land of the wrong white crowd"; I wonder; was that written by an Asian perhaps?Careful or you'll get labelled as a racist redneck.

98tls

13th July 2009, 22:03

Careful or you'll get labelled as a racist redneck. Finally my cue:argh:.......nevermind.

peasea

13th July 2009, 22:08

Careful or you'll get labelled as a racist redneck.

Way too late mate.
Besides, a little bit of racism is a healthy thing, it creates debate. As long as we aren't lynching anybody it's all good.

Bonez

13th July 2009, 22:19

Way too late mate.
Besides, a little bit of racism is a healthy thing, it creates debate. As long as we aren't lynching anybody it's all good."Reverse racism" is a humorous term don't you think.

98tls

13th July 2009, 22:25

"Reverse racism" is a humorous term don't you think. A favourite on here for sure.Am awaiting a "reverse waving thread" or possibly a "WTF is wrong with everybody that doesnt ride a Harley" thread or even a "For those that wear to much safety gear" thread.

oldrider

13th July 2009, 23:27

"Reverse racism" is a humorous term don't you think.

Yeah, racists say the darnedest things, don't they! :shifty:

98tls

13th July 2009, 23:35

Yeah, racists say the darnedest things, don't they! :shifty: Only cause there not "entilted" to John.:mellow:

peasea

14th July 2009, 07:15

"Reverse racism" is a humorous term don't you think.

!sreggin denmad, si eruS

Bonez

14th July 2009, 20:03

Cheers for the links guys.

The emails to Martin Doutré are very intriquing.

idleidolidyll

14th July 2009, 20:11

i'd like to know why our generation seems to be expected to foot the whole fucking bill for the assholes who fucked all of us over 150 years ago.

most of the rich bastards who profited from any theft had families who made fatter profits from this shit and passed it on to their decedents: let those fukkers pay

the fukkin royalty and the goddam pomes made shitloads from the maori; make bessie and phil the greek pay the fuckin bill

my rellies came after most of the shit went down and were starving spud farmers poorer than most maori; why the fuck should I have to pay anything at all?

this country is becoming an apartheid state

can i claim back some of ireland cause the fukkin pomes fucked us over?

idleidolidyll

14th July 2009, 20:21

Aint it interesting how the proceeds of crimes stuff works (not):

when a thief steals your car, your property etc and sells it to a fence, the fence sells it to some innocent on Trademe but if found, the property still belongs to the original owner..........but, when rich criminal steal money or land, passes it on to second and third party rich bastards, governments step in and pay the bill with money from taxes

genuine land theft from a century ago has profited many NZ families; do they have to pay back the proceeds of crime?

talk about bullshit, Bernie Madoff's buddies made billions but chances are they'll never have to pay back a red cent....................that's capitalism for ya

Pussy

14th July 2009, 20:25

that's capitalism for ya

Not necessarily capitalism.... just plain being a shit-head.

Those people just chose not to listen to their conscience

idleidolidyll

14th July 2009, 20:29

Not necessarily capitalism.... just plain being a shit-head.

Those people just chose not to listen to their conscience

yes, capitalism: ultimate control in the hands of the capitalists. they make the rules and steal the really BIG money every time

capitalism is a failure, most just haven't woken up to it yet because the capitalists control the media and the propaganda

oldrider

14th July 2009, 21:17

...........that's capitalism for ya

No!.....Thats "crime" for yah! :sick:

Pussy

14th July 2009, 21:19

No!.....Thats "crime" for yah! :sick:

Thanks, John... that's what I was getting at! :niceone:

idleidolidyll

15th July 2009, 06:14

No!.....Thats "crime" for yah! :sick:

nope; that's the crime capitalists commit, the kind that damage large numbers of ordinary people but in which the perp and the friends of the perp who benefit from the crime get off scott free or with lighter sentences that a burglar who steals a stereo, tv etc

amazing that people will throw stones at specific petty crimes and attribute them to one group or another but when some really big crimes are identified as comitted by capitalists and it's pointed out that these crimes are lightly punished with the proceeds often never returned; the same people whine that it's kust another crime.

face it; much of the land theft in NZ's past directly benefitted capitalists and their decendents but ordinary people have to pay for the crimes as their rellies carry on with the proceeds of the crime keeping them wealthy.

davereid

15th July 2009, 08:01

face it; much of the land theft in NZ's past directly benefitted capitalists and their decendents but ordinary people have to pay for the crimes as their rellies carry on with the proceeds of the crime keeping them wealthy.

Actually, capitalists defend property rights.

Thats one of the basics of capitalisim.

Socialists and Communists on the other hand, do not defend property rights ... the individual or familys right to own property or land is subjugated to the state.

The reason we have a mess today is nothing to do with capitalisim, and eveything to do with confusion, and (maori) racisim.

To put it more simply, maori who had land seized illegally, have every right to use legal process (capitalist law) to getthe land back and or be paid for it.

But, they like to claim and do stuff that has nothing to do with ownership and eveything to do with race.

They feature on the telly saying "I'm tangata whenua, I don't need to pay my mortgage" and "This is Tuhoe land - fuck off - oops leave the dole cheque over there".

They like to think that there is such a thing as reverse racisim. Sadly, once you stand up and say "I'm different, I'm maori", people remember. Particularly if you are different in a criminal sort of way.

oldrider

15th July 2009, 10:38

nope; that's the crime capitalists commit, the kind that damage large numbers of ordinary people but in which the perp and the friends of the perp who benefit from the crime get off scott free or with lighter sentences that a burglar who steals a stereo, tv etc

amazing that people will throw stones at specific petty crimes and attribute them to one group or another but when some really big crimes are identified as comitted by capitalists and it's pointed out that these crimes are lightly punished with the proceeds often never returned; the same people whine that it's kust another crime.

face it; much of the land theft in NZ's past directly benefitted capitalists and their decendents but ordinary people have to pay for the crimes as their rellies carry on with the proceeds of the crime keeping them wealthy.

"You are the man in the mirror" :confused:

Unfortunately, you just can't see your own image as clearly as the rest of us can! :shifty:

To quote Robbie Burns, the poet:

"Would that God the gift to give us, to see our selves, as others see us". :crybaby: Often not a pretty sight at first. :no: but it gives you something to work on! :sunny:

idb

15th July 2009, 12:33

.................

The reason we have a mess today is nothing to do with capitalisim, and eveything to do with confusion, and (maori) racisim.

To put it more simply, maori who had land seized illegally, have every right to use legal process (capitalist law) to getthe land back and or be paid for it.

But, they like to claim and do stuff that has nothing to do with ownership and eveything to do with race.

They feature on the telly saying "I'm tangata whenua, I don't need to pay my mortgage" and "This is Tuhoe land - fuck off - oops leave the dole cheque over there".

They like to think that there is such a thing as reverse racisim. Sadly, once you stand up and say "I'm different, I'm maori", people remember. Particularly if you are different in a criminal sort of way.

Just who are they?

scumdog

15th July 2009, 13:21

Just who are they?

I dunno - but I bet if we waved to them they would be happier....:shifty:

idb

15th July 2009, 15:06

I dunno - but I bet if we waved to them they would be happier....:shifty:

Hey!!!
That gives me a great idea!!!

Bonez

15th July 2009, 16:08

Hey!!!
That gives me a great idea!!!Does it involve tassles?

Kickaha

15th July 2009, 18:27

Hey!!!
That gives me a great idea!!!

A KB wave?

James Deuce

15th July 2009, 18:39

A KB wave?

As I've said repeatedly before, I vote for the 12 O'Clock brown eye.

popelli

15th July 2009, 19:06

To put it more simply, maori who had land seized illegally, have every right to use legal process (capitalist law) to getthe land back and or be paid for it.

that sounds reasonable but what process is to be used when one maori sold another maoris land or land he had no authority over

shouldn't the tribes sort compensation for these illegal sales out between themselves or do we forget/ignore about these indiscretions and let the tax payer foot the bill for everything

it was not just the non maori who ripped the maoris off, a lot of them ripped each other off - these facts seem to be have been lost in the treaty claim process

davereid

15th July 2009, 20:37

that sounds reasonable but what process is to be used when one maori sold another maoris land or land he had no authority over

shouldn't the tribes sort compensation for these illegal sales out between themselves or do we forget/ignore about these indiscretions and let the tax payer foot the bill for everything

it was not just the non maori who ripped the maoris off, a lot of them ripped each other off - these facts seem to be have been lost in the treaty claim process

My lot (Ngati Hotu) were the original inhabitants of the Central North Island.

They were primarily butchered by Ngati Tuwharetoa, but also Ngai Tuhoe, Ngati Rangitihi, Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whakaue.

Of course, the conquest by force of Ngati Hotu is seen as acceptable, in comparison to any conquest by force of later arrivals like Ngati Pommie, which of course is unacceptable.

The musket wars were well after the treaty, but thats OK too.

Winner takes all ya know.

Except Pommies.

idb

16th July 2009, 08:20

A KB wave?

Yes, yes, yes...you know you want it!!!!

outlawtorn

16th July 2009, 12:19

As an immigrant (who is now a Citizen :woohoo:) to this fair, damp land it really makes me laugh at how the Maori's shout jump and everyone jumps, because nobody wants to be seen as politcally incorrect or rascist. It's really funny that they want their own justice system too, does the Government not have one that already works? I don't pretend to understand what is going on, it's just really funny from an outsiders point of view. I think more of a backbone is needed.....

tri boy

16th July 2009, 12:49

My lot (Ngati Hotu) were the original inhabitants of the Central North Island.

They were primarily butchered by Ngati Tuwharetoa, but also Ngai Tuhoe, Ngati Rangitihi, Ngati Whare, Ngati Manawa and Ngati Whakaue.

You lot can't fight for shit.
Were you the runt of the tribe litter?

Winston001

16th July 2009, 12:57

It's really funny that they want their own justice system too, does the Government not have one that already works?.....

Native Americans and Inuit have separate justice systems within their territories.

So does the IRA..... ;)

Finn

16th July 2009, 13:01

Actually, capitalists defend property rights.

Thats one of the basics of capitalisim.

Socialists and Communists on the other hand, do not defend property rights ... the individual or familys right to own property or land is subjugated to the state.

Ouch! Direct hit right to Idle's nuts. Good work.

outlawtorn

16th July 2009, 13:06

Native Americans and Inuit have separate justice systems within their territories.

So does the IRA.....

Wow, didn't know that, thanks. But I do hope the Maori's aren't comparing NZ to the US or Canada, we have an issue with physical land space, so there isn't that much to go around...

Lissa

16th July 2009, 13:18

As I understand it, (which could be wrong) the English came over and because they were losing the war decided to set up the treaty, which not all tribes signed or even understood.

I really don't take it personally that the Maori are wanting compensation from the Government, it is compensation from the Crown (England) that they should get. My ancestors came over to start a new life, on land that really wasn't theirs, they worked hard and made a life but as I understand were enticed to NZ with false information from the English in the first place.

For some reason I never learnt a thing in History Lessons at school about the Maori Wars or the Treaty so I am ignorant of a lot of facts.

Just like I am proud of my heritage, I can trace my family tree back one thousand years to the viking raids in England. But I do not consider myself English, Irish or Scandinavian I am a New Zealander. But as I embrace my heritage so do the Maoris, and so they should.

This is such an emotive issue, but I wouldn't bag the extreme activists in with the whole population of Maori's.

Bonez

16th July 2009, 16:41

As I understand it, (which could be wrong) the English came over and because they were losing the war It was get in before the French and the Yanks. Also not often mentioned was to have some control over the colonist etc. putting them under Englands big stick.:bash:

Maori selling of land was a different concept to European.

Pom1- can I buy some land?
Maori- sure bro, have this for a few muskets, blankets and a bag of tea.
Pom1-Yippy!!
Pom2- Can I buy some land?
Maori-Sure cuz, have this I'll take wahene you've got there.
Pom2-Praise the lord!
Pom1 and Pom2 work away at each end of the property and bump into each
other.
Pom1-Hey this is MY land.
Pom2-No it's not it's mine I bought it off Henare.
Pom1-So did I.
Henare hears the ruckus rushes over and asked "Whats the problem yuse fallas?
Both poms tell their stories.
Henare thinks about it and goes "Hmmmm, in fact you pommy gits this is MY land You just have the use of it you don't own it.

davereid

16th July 2009, 17:38

As I understand it, (which could be wrong) the English came over and because they were losing the war decided to set up the treaty, which not all tribes signed or even understood.

By 1840, many maori had been to europe, and many had stopped on the way at french and dutch occupied territories.

Maori were concerned about the behaviour of settlers, particularly the french, who it appeared did not negotiate or purchase land, they just took it.

Plus, the traditional balance of power inside maoridom was shifting, as some tribes were proving adept at obtaining muskets, and were increasingly capable of threatening previously dominant tribes.

Maori petitioned King William for the brits to sort it out - the treaty was the brits reluctant solution.

Certainly many maori did not sign, but maori were always at war with each other, and the dominant chiefs virtually all signed.

There was much confusion as to some phrases, particularly those regarding government.

wbks

16th July 2009, 18:14

I can trace my family tree back one thousand years to the viking raids in England. How did ya do that?

popelli

16th July 2009, 18:23

It's really funny that they want their own justice system too, does the Government not have one that already works?

can the victim decide which justice system is used, if so then this is a great idea

oldrider

16th July 2009, 20:54

By 1840, many maori had been to europe, and many had stopped on the way at french and dutch occupied territories.

Maori were concerned about the behaviour of settlers, particularly the french, who it appeared did not negotiate or purchase land, they just took it.

Plus, the traditional balance of power inside maoridom was shifting, as some tribes were proving adept at obtaining muskets, and were increasingly capable of threatening previously dominant tribes.

Maori petitioned King William for the brits to sort it out - the treaty was the brits reluctant solution.

Certainly many maori did not sign, but maori were always at war with each other, and the dominant chiefs virtually all signed.

There was much confusion as to some phrases, particularly those regarding government.

Lets not argue about the accuracy of how this all happened but just dwell on the fact that it did happen!

From the signing of the treaty we "New Zealanders" (people who before this date were Maori and Pakeha) stepped forward as "One land, one people" into a very bright future together.

Granted there have been many mistakes made along the way but these are trying to be systematically addressed!

What right do Maori have to go their own separate way now?

I hear (some) "Maori" constantly accusing the rest of New Zealand to "Honour the treaty"!

I cannot help but ask my self if it is really a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"!

No one ever said this process of making the treaty work would be easy but the originators obviously believed it would be worth it!

They did their bit, are we doing our part to the best of our ability, or are we the weak link in a 169 year old chain?

Ask yourself, not what is wrong with the treaty but what you can do to make it work!

It is folly to expect the treaty to be anything other than a "founding document" that gave "us" an opportunity to begin to move forward.

The real document should be written in the heads and the hearts of the participants, that is, every single individual New Zealander!

The future depends upon "us", lets not ruin the opportunity of getting it right, our children are depending on us FFS! :yes:

Robert Taylor

16th July 2009, 22:14

The culture of blame is alive and well. I have Maori friends, I even have socialist friends ( god forbid! ) But when they try and apportion their grievances on me thats when I take humbrage as all too often its just a gravy train ( for those at the top mostly ) and all successive governments are guilty of perpetuating that. We are all kiwis for gods sake and many are milkshakes, not of their own choosing. ( That is in no way intended to be derogatory ) That fact alone absolves them of the credibility to have grievances against the white man as in the end event it smacks of racial hypocrisy.
There are far more important things for the crown to be spending money on, such as a credible front line defence force to defend our large oceanic economic zone from future threat. That is something we should all collectively be concerned about, irresoective of genetic composition.

Molly

16th July 2009, 22:14

can the victim decide which justice system is used, if so then this is a great idea

For that you need to look at restorative justice and ideas around victim / offender mediation and family group conferencing. Some of this has roots in Aboriginal and Maori conflict settling mechanisms. Victims are given a voice and can have some say in reparation / sentencing.

Robert Taylor

16th July 2009, 22:21

nope; that's the crime capitalists commit, the kind that damage large numbers of ordinary people but in which the perp and the friends of the perp who benefit from the crime get off scott free or with lighter sentences that a burglar who steals a stereo, tv etc

amazing that people will throw stones at specific petty crimes and attribute them to one group or another but when some really big crimes are identified as comitted by capitalists and it's pointed out that these crimes are lightly punished with the proceeds often never returned; the same people whine that it's kust another crime.

face it; much of the land theft in NZ's past directly benefitted capitalists and their decendents but ordinary people have to pay for the crimes as their rellies carry on with the proceeds of the crime keeping them wealthy.

Well history has proven a number of things,

Yes indeed the excesses of capitalism are not very pretty, reason unchecked greed.

And yes indeed the excesses of unchecked socialism / communism are equally unpretty. Reason, unchecked greed or a thirst for total control.

I remember in Britain a certain Neil Kinnock and his wife were always decrying the fruits of capitalism and the trappings of political power. Now both he and his wife have very cosy jobs courtesy of taxpayers. HYPOCRITES.

You and I are polar opposites politically but I also believe have a sense of fairplay. Its all about balance.

98tls

16th July 2009, 22:25

There are far more important things for the crown to be spending money on, such as a credible front line defence force to defend our large oceanic economic zone from future threat. That is something we should all collectively be concerned about, irresoective of genetic composition. The bros have at least stepped up on that front,they wont let anyone get past the foreshore.

crazyhorse

17th July 2009, 09:21

It will never end in NZ - too many weak people in this country!

Mr Merde

17th July 2009, 09:26

...., I can trace my family tree back one thousand years to the viking raids in England. ....

My younger sister has traced my famly line back to the year 605 AD in Ireland. Thats an unbroken line going back 1,405 years.

She is busy compliing it in a form where we can recite it as and when needed.

I wonder how long it will take to recite. A few hours I expect. This is my whakapapa.

Finn

17th July 2009, 09:29

It will never end in NZ - too many weak people in this country!

You are quite correct. The Schools & Universities will continue to indoctrinate and keep the money train huffing and puffing and Governments who don't really give a crap about the early settlers will be mindful of losing too many votes.

Swoop

17th July 2009, 13:06

I'd just like to mention one word that has been missing from this thread...

BEER.

Bonez

17th July 2009, 13:08

I'd just like to mention one word that has been missing from this thread...

BEER.Light or dark?

Finn

17th July 2009, 14:15

Light or dark?

DPB Brown. It's like DB Brown but with P.

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 10:08

Actually, capitalists defend property rights.

Thats one of the basics of capitalisim.

Oh dear, once again Mr Reid shows us he does not understand what capitalism actually is.

FYI again and again and again: Capitalism is a system in which capitalists control the means of production. A capitalist is not necessarily someone with a million bucks. A capitalist is someone who lusts after power and uses their capital to corner the power even to the extent of dictating to governments and subordinating the will of the people. In this modern world, capitalists control through currency manipulation, banking manipulation, free trade, international fraud and lies (ie., pharmaceutical, oil and cigarette companies); the list goes on.

Capitalists have only ever 'protected' property rights after they've stolen them from other people or taken advantage of others poor situations (sometimes through manipulation) to buy at firesale prices. Usually, prior to their ownership of property, they do whatever they can to make it easy for them and their mates to take control, THEN they protect THEIR property rights.

Socialists and Communists on the other hand, do not defend property rights ... the individual or familys right to own property or land is subjugated to the state.

And again he does it, that's communism indeed but it's not necessarily socialism. The trouble is you don't understand the terminology but I don't blame you; you have sucked down a lifetime of capitalist propaganda.

The reason we have a mess today is nothing to do with capitalisim, and eveything to do with confusion, and (maori) racisim.

Ha! ha! That's hilarious. The West (Brits) initially came to NZ to make money and to take a land off its indigenous people as they had in the past in order to make money and control the inhabitants: capitalism it was

To put it more simply, maori who had land seized illegally, have every right to use legal process (capitalist law) to getthe land back and or be paid for it.

I have no problem with that. I'd like to see the decendents and families who profitted from those crimes pay back the money or give back the land without burdening the rest of us with the cost of their crime or their pofit of crime.

But, they like to claim and do stuff that has nothing to do with ownership and eveything to do with race.

Ah but so do Maori. Dummest shit on the news this week? Parakura Horomia saying Maori should only give joibs to Maori. If a Pakeha had sais white people should only give jobs to white people; the shit would have hit the fan.

They feature on the telly saying "I'm tangata whenua, I don't need to pay my mortgage" and "This is Tuhoe land - fuck off - oops leave the dole cheque over there".

That's a good point. If Maori want sovereignty the ball is in their court to show how it would work and continuing to take with both hands is not gonna convince anyone.

They like to think that there is such a thing as reverse racisim. Sadly, once you stand up and say "I'm different, I'm maori", people remember. Particularly if you are different in a criminal sort of way.

Racism exists whatever race you come from. IMO a lot of the Maori party statements are racist as was Horimia's above. Ditto for Pakeha racists like Hyde

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 10:09

Ouch! Direct hit right to Idle's nuts. Good work.

Hey look, my stalker's flatulating again.

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 10:13

Well history has proven a number of things,

Yes indeed the excesses of capitalism are not very pretty, reason unchecked greed.

And yes indeed the excesses of unchecked socialism / communism are equally unpretty. Reason, unchecked greed or a thirst for total control.

I remember in Britain a certain Neil Kinnock and his wife were always decrying the fruits of capitalism and the trappings of political power. Now both he and his wife have very cosy jobs courtesy of taxpayers. HYPOCRITES.

You and I are polar opposites politically but I also believe have a sense of fairplay. Its all about balance.

Oh dear, Mr Taylor, like Mr Reid shows his lack of understanding again.

To paraphrase Marx: Socialism is an area between the excesses of fascism and communism.

Fascism: extreme right wing capitalism
Communism: State dictated collectivism

Next thing will be some noddy plonking on about the 'Left Wing Media': HILARIOUS!

I challenge the two to think harder and find the truth behind the propaganda they have sucked down all their lives

James Deuce

18th July 2009, 11:18

At least the Fascists can get the trains running on time.

wbks

18th July 2009, 11:40

My younger sister has traced my famly line back to the year 605 AD in Ireland. Thats an unbroken line going back 1,405 years.
How the fark did she do that?:(

Finn

18th July 2009, 11:42

Hey look, my stalker's flatulating again.

Don't flatter yourself deadbeat.

If you put half your energy into cleaning yourself up and getting a job instead of dedicating your time making yourself look like a freak, we would all be better off.

Robert Taylor

18th July 2009, 11:47

Oh dear, Mr Taylor, like Mr Reid shows his lack of understanding again.

To paraphrase Marx: Socialism is an area between the excesses of fascism and communism.

Fascism: extreme right wing capitalism
Communism: State dictated collectivism

Next thing will be some noddy plonking on about the 'Left Wing Media': HILARIOUS!

I challenge the two to think harder and find the truth behind the propaganda they have sucked down all their lives

Your use of the word HILARIOUS is so frequent that its not funny anymore.

In fact I know enough about facism and communism to have worked out that in practice they operate similarly. A ruling elite living the high life and subjugating their people with fear. Etcetera.

You can go on believing the socialist propaganda that suits you best. And Ill be just as happy believing in the principles of compassionate conservatism. The silly thing is we believe in some of the same ends eg a fair days pay for a fair days work, equal opportunity, level playing fields etc. You may have noticed that some of my comments on the BGW thread are disparaging of this new trend that will directly impact on the security of employees within the NZ motorcycle industry.

I have just as much contempt for the worlds bankers, how they dictate to governments, their obscene bonuses etc. But then I also have similiar contempt for lifestyle welfare and all the lazy pricks in the world who think they are owed a living etc. And yes things have to change but full blown socialism is not the answer.

Robert Taylor

18th July 2009, 11:56

You are quite correct. The Schools & Universities will continue to indoctrinate and keep the money train huffing and puffing and Governments who don't really give a crap about the early settlers will be mindful of losing too many votes.

Back in the early seventies when I was at high school 6 of my teachers were paid up members of the local Labour party and were very active in it. I remember having a stand up argument with one of these teachers who at the time was livid about Gough Whitlam being forced to resign as Australian priminister. He predicted that at the next election Malcolm Fraser would lose by a landslide, when it so didnt happen I reminded him of his outburst. That was sweet.
There is nothing worse than a fully blinkered argumentative and emotional socialist.

Indiana_Jones

18th July 2009, 12:17

Only one man can fix this

<img src="http://sequencek.com/2007/11/12/TheTrooper_Home.jpg">

-Indy

scracha

18th July 2009, 12:32

on land that really wasn't theirs, they worked hard and made a life but as I understand were enticed to NZ with false information from the English in the first place.

Are you sure it wasn't theirs? The majority of early settlers purchased land legally and fairly. This is conveniently forgotten? Later on land was sometimes (Waikato, Taranaki, etc) unfairly confiscated.

Many were enticed to NZ for the same reason they buggered off to the Americas....they were starving or essentially had a very shit life. The English weren't the only punters here either.

Your speil about "the crown" losing a war is based on what?. The war was well AFTER the treaty. NZ was effectively the wild west and "the crown" were just as concerned about protecting Maori as the French, English, Scottish, Irish, American, Dutch and other settlers. Otherwise they wouldn't have given them the same legal rights as British subjects. I think many people get confused differenciating "the crown" from "The New Zealand Company".

Now who owns the South Island?

Well over 150 years and we're all still arguing. Time to put it to bed methinks and look towards the future. Maybe a new treaty should be signed.

James Deuce

18th July 2009, 12:50

Are you sure it wasn't theirs? The majority of early settlers purchased land legally and fairly. This is conveniently forgotten? Later on land was sometimes (Waikato, Taranaki, etc) unfairly confiscated.

.

Err, no actually. The NZ Company sold land that wasn't theirs to sell. They also sold rolling meadows to Scandinavians that was actually dense sub-temperate rainforest, and so on and so on.

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 13:45

Err, no actually. The NZ Company sold land that wasn't theirs to sell. They also sold rolling meadows to Scandinavians that was actually dense sub-temperate rainforest, and so on and so on.

indeed they did, capitalist theft not much different from the massive capitalist crimes of today where the taxpayer pays for the rich to keep the proceeds of theft

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 14:21

Don't flatter yourself deadbeat.

If you put half your energy into cleaning yourself up and getting a job instead of dedicating your time making yourself look like a freak, we would all be better off.

a job?

what, like NZ Sales Manager?

ha! ha! losers like you should give up stalking and jerking off in public and go find another friend

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 14:32

Your use of the word HILARIOUS is so frequent that its not funny anymore.

Not to you and I understand why; you continue to suck down the same tired propaganda and refuse to look into the reality beyond it

In fact I know enough about facism and communism to have worked out that in practice they operate similarly. A ruling elite living the high life and subjugating their people with fear. Etcetera.

That's actually dictatorship an/or oligarchy. it's what happens when a system is corrupted by greedy people hungering for power.
Once they have taken over and corrupted the system into their personal or elite subjugate system it is not what it used to be; that is the lesson you seem not to have grasped yet. Given that capitalism is a system in which the wealthy elite control most everything and that socialism is one where the people retain control; it's most likely to happen in capitalism as this is first and foremost a system that rewards greed

You can go on believing the socialist propaganda that suits you best. And Ill be just as happy believing in the principles of compassionate conservatism. (ha! ha!, what a fucking joke!, conservatism by name and nature is an intolerant political belief.) The silly thing is we believe in some of the same ends eg a fair days pay for a fair days work, equal opportunity, level playing fields etc. You may have noticed that some of my comments on the BGW thread are disparaging of this new trend that will directly impact on the security of employees within the NZ motorcycle industry.

wonderful 'You can go on believing the socialist propaganda that suits you best' a non statement if ever there was one; a blunt club instead of an arrow and a statement that tells me again that you really don't know what you are talking about

I have just as much contempt for the worlds bankers, how they dictate to governments, their obscene bonuses etc. But then I also have similiar contempt for lifestyle welfare and all the lazy pricks in the world who think they are owed a living etc. And yes things have to change but full blown socialism is not the answer.

so you say but isn't it strange how you continue to be fooled by the system you think helps you.

"full blown socialism is not the answer" another non statement; what is "full blown socialism"?
Given that Marx identified socialism as the middle ground between extreme communism and extreme fascism, it would seem that your statement is as empty of thoughtful consideration as it is of fact

scumdog

18th July 2009, 15:31

wbks

18th July 2009, 16:44

so you say but isn't it strange how you continue to be fooled by the system you think helps you.

"full blown socialism is not the answer" another non statement; what is "full blown socialism"?
Given that Marx identified socialism as the middle ground between extreme communism and extreme fascism, it would seem that your statement is as empty of thoughtful consideration as it is of fact

Ok, this isn't a wise-crack, simply a question from someone who is simple and lost when it comes to all these systems that I've never read about... So you say socialism is one where the people are in control, and capatalism is the wealthy elite controlling everything for themselves... But in examples of socialism, compared to capitalism, it seems the opposite? The general state of life in capitalist areas are better from rich to poor than socialist examples

James Deuce

18th July 2009, 16:50

wbks

18th July 2009, 16:56

There are no Socialist Governments anywhere. It's simply too difficult to get societies to work for each other instead of themselves.Hence the term I used: "Socialist Examples". "N.A.Z.I"

James Deuce

18th July 2009, 16:59

There've been no socialist states.

Fascism is the ultimate expression of Capitalism.

davereid

18th July 2009, 17:04

indeed they did, capitalist theft not much different from the massive capitalist crimes of today where the taxpayer pays for the rich to keep the proceeds of theft

Strange you blame the capitalists for the theft of land in New Zealand.

Maori actually petitoned the brits for the treaty.

Why ?

Because the worlds first socialist nation (France) was claiming, and taking land all over the world by force, without even considering the "rights" of the natives.

They kept on using force to take land elsewhere for decades.

idleidolidyll

18th July 2009, 17:06

Ok, this isn't a wise-crack, simply a question from someone who is simple and lost when it comes to all these systems that I've never read about... So you say socialism is one where the people are in control, and capatalism is the wealthy elite controlling everything for themselves... But in examples of socialism, compared to capitalism, it seems the opposite? The general state of life in capitalist areas are better from rich to poor than socialist examples

the start of the problem is that people think that there are only two ideologies and therefore they are opposite.
there are in fact many more and you'd do well to think of the political spectrum as liberal/authoritarian as well as left/right.

Most people fall inside the extremes and if you study the actions of people and parties instead of the words, you'll see that propaganda is universal.

Take the test and see where you lie but don't look at any of the comparison charts until you do. Then compare yourself with parties and people in and outside NZ.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

wbks

18th July 2009, 17:40

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23 So what does that make me?

Robert Taylor

18th July 2009, 17:42

Well the world is full of hypocrisy! Just take a look at what is happening in England with MPs expenses, the worst perpetrators are the ruling but soon to be electorally annihilated Labour party.
Thankfully there is hope yet, the poms have invented synthetic sperm. With all of the other medical advances they will be able to create another Margaret Thatcher.
Dont lecture me about socialism Ignoramuslefty, Ive seen plenty of the damage created by that mentality over the 50 plus years Ive been around. Capitalism with appropriate controls is fine by me, and demonstably by most reading this thread and all of your previous verbosity reference the subject.
Of course if we dont subscribe to your version of propganda then we are doubtless all ignorant hicks.

popelli

18th July 2009, 17:52

Of course if we dont subscribe to your version of propganda then we are doubtless all ignorant hicks.

or racists

scracha

18th July 2009, 18:14

Err, no actually. The NZ Company sold land that wasn't theirs to sell. They also sold rolling meadows to Scandinavians that was actually dense sub-temperate rainforest, and so on and so on.

Another misrepresentation. Yes, the NZ Company sold SOME land that was not theirs to sell. The MAJORITY of land was sold fairly and squarely. The MAJORITY of the land the NZ Company sold unfairly was given back/recompensated back in the 19th century. A lot of poor cunts who'd travelled from Ireland/Scotland/England/France/Canada/America got the land they'd purchased (rightly or wrongly) taken off them and were not compensated. A lot of confiscated land during the Maori Wars had been fairly and legal bought by both Maori and non Maori. I'm not against the Waitangi Trubunal process but it should have an end date and it should also be compensating both sides. The treaty was for all New Zealanders.

And Dr Bob, Maggie Thatcher got as corrupt and evil as any other politician after her first term in office.

Finn

19th July 2009, 08:51

From Oswalds blog... A new word.

aBROpriate (comparative more aBROpriate, superlative most aBROpriate)

The act of grabbing taxpayers money for that which no other group would get funding for.

The Government aBROpriated huge sums to settle outstanding land claims.
Set apart for a particular use or race; reserved.
Hence, belonging peculiarly; peculiar; suitable; fit; proper.

The head of the iwi wondered what an aBROpriate measure would be to make the tangata whenua feel better.

Suitable to the social situation or to social respect or social discreetness; socially correct; socially discreet; well-mannered; proper.

I don't think it was aBROpriate for the cashier to tell me outloud in front of all those people at the check-out that my fisheries compensation cheque looked like it was way too large.

GIXser

19th July 2009, 10:06

its not a big bag of money delivered to the tribe people, the amounts are mostly made up of land and assets and a small amount of cash, for example the tribe im associated with has a reasonable asset base to enable them to offer the tribe some bennifits for example i am part owner of the bulls police station and a few other stupid little dwellings and some land with some trees on it, big frecking deal, but the tribe who owed it in the first place with its own legal borders has got something back.............it was basically stolen via mean nasty english tossers.
I dont really care about the issue, but i take pride that we as a country address them as opposed to forget them and hope they will go away which seems to be the standard around the globe.

Besides why should the government own some the the assets in question, they basically fuck up everything they touch, land is better with the maori in many respects.

rolf..........lol

Mr Merde

19th July 2009, 15:59

......
And Dr Bob, Maggie Thatcher got as corrupt and evil as any other politician after her first term in office.

Having lived through the Thatcher years in the UK, I was there from 1977 till 2004 altogether, I can agree to nthis statement.

Maggie moved her political stance more and morde to the extreme right wing as her period in office lengthened.

Labour cam into power by changing their positition in the political compass by taking up the middle ground, which appealed to more of the electorate. Then what happened?

Tony Blair and this government have both gone more to the right wing as time has progressed.

The Conservatives problem was finding their position again. Their traditional area had been usurped by "New Labour".

I dont have any answers, I dont pretend to know or pontificate a point of view. All I have learnt from a few years in this life is that whatever party is in "power", we get screwed. They all suck up to us at election time promising us what they think we want and then once in power they just ignore those people who elected them and push their own agendas. Any of which has the ultimkate objective of keeping them in a position where we are subserviant to them.

You can argue political propganda as much as you like, all we the populace want is an easier life. We want a health system that works, a lifestyle that allows us to enjoy what time we have, an education system that allows us and our decendants to develop and a safe and stable family life that we can be relaxed with.

We are the silent majority and I'm tired of being ignored.

I will vote for anyone or any party that will give me these. Until they do you can take all this theorising and stick it where the sun doesnt shine.

Take your "pissing" competition and stick it there as well because I for one am finding it very tedious. Your continual bickering is boring and so very predictable.

Robert Taylor

19th July 2009, 16:27

Having lived through the Thatcher years in the UK, I was there from 1977 till 2004 altogether, I can agree to nthis statement.

Maggie moved her political stance more and morde to the extreme right wing as her period in office lengthened.

Labour cam into power by changing their positition in the political compass by taking up the middle ground, which appealed to more of the electorate. Then what happened?

Tony Blair and this government have both gone more to the right wing as time has progressed.

The Conservatives problem was finding their position again. Their traditional area had been usurped by "New Labour".

I dont have any answers, I dont pretend to know or pontificate a point of view. All I have learnt from a few years in this life is that whatever party is in "power", we get screwed. They all suck up to us at election time promising us what they think we want and then once in power they just ignore those people who elected them and push their own agendas. Any of which has the ultimkate objective of keeping them in a position where we are subserviant to them.

You can argue political propganda as much as you like, all we the populace want is an easier life. We want a health system that works, a lifestyle that allows us to enjoy what time we have, an education system that allows us and our decendants to develop and a safe and stable family life that we can be relaxed with.

We are the silent majority and I'm tired of being ignored.

I will vote for anyone or any party that will give me these. Until they do you can take all this theorising and stick it where the sun doesnt shine.

Take your "pissing" competition and stick it there as well because I for one am finding it very tedious. Your continual bickering is boring and so very predictable.

I agree with much of what you reasonably wish for from Governments and I also lived in the UK during the Thatcher period, but beg to differ because warts and all she took that country by the scruff of the kneck and made something of it again. By and large New Labour inherited a much stronger economy and overall wellbeing post Tory control than the state that Callaghan left it in. From what I can make out Botchup Brown is going to leave it in an even bigger mess than what Callaghan did.
Similiar to Maggie David Cameron is going to have to make some very unpleasant decisions.
I often wonder how things would have panned out had Michael Heseltine scored the top job, he truly defined ''compassionate consevatism'' ( yikes thats probably going to start an argument )
Its also fair to say that in line with the original theme of this thread ''Once Great Britain'' is paying for its history. And there I go again thinking that it would now be a much better place had Enoch Powell scored the top job. ( that will mark me as a racist in some quarters )
I love the UK but can also understand why many of its inhabitants are leaving.

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 16:41

Well the world is full of hypocrisy! Just take a look at what is happening in England with MPs expenses, the worst perpetrators are the ruling but soon to be electorally annihilated Labour party.

Yawn, straw man argument. boring ad infinitum

Thankfully there is hope yet, the poms have invented synthetic sperm. With all of the other medical advances they will be able to create another Margaret Thatcher.

Maggie was a ruthless dictator (no less than Hitler, Mussolini and other right wing dictators) and cared bugger all for the masses. Your support for her and your constant calls for fascist policies in NZ is abhorrent.

Dont lecture me about socialism Ignoramuslefty, Ive seen plenty of the damage created by that mentality over the 50 plus years Ive been around. Capitalism with appropriate controls is fine by me, and demonstably by most reading this thread and all of your previous verbosity reference the subject.

that's an easy statement to make dickheadrighty when you rarely to never explain what you think capitalism is although your rhetoric does indicate that you feel it is of benefit to you and your current situation and screw the rest.
Capitalism with 'appropriate controls' is called socialism; the centre way between the extremes of capitalist and communist authoritarianism.

Of course if we dont subscribe to your version of propganda then we are doubtless all ignorant hicks.

and don't sanctimoniously post open ended blather about communism and socialism being one and the same and nonsense about compassionate conservatism in which wealthy people get to keep the system that makes them wealthier in place as other are screwed over while chucking a few breadcrumbs to 'the peasants' to keep them quiet.
The demonstration, oft exhibited here, of blind adherence to right wing propaganda as above is tedious and boring but i refuse to let it be spoke without refutation.

The left wing media is a myth; the media has been a right wing tool for at least a century. It is the source of most right wing propaganda and is a mouthpiece for politicians, businesses and elites who understand the contol it has even though the controlled masses often do not. The essence of Capitalism stands for control of humanity by a tiny elite of which you are not, and never be a member.

And in my book, that makes your attitude all the more inecusable.

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 16:44

I agree with much of what you reasonably wish for from Governments and I also lived in the UK during the Thatcher period, but beg to differ because warts and all she took that country by the scruff of the kneck and made something of it again. By and large New Labour inherited a much stronger economy and overall wellbeing post Tory control than the state that Callaghan left it in. From what I can make out Botchup Brown is going to leave it in an even bigger mess than what Callaghan did.
Similiar to Maggie David Cameron is going to have to make some very unpleasant decisions.
I often wonder how things would have panned out had Michael Heseltine scored the top job, he truly defined ''compassionate consevatism'' ( yikes thats probably going to start an argument )
Its also fair to say that in line with the original theme of this thread ''Once Great Britain'' is paying for its history. And there I go again thinking that it would now be a much better place had Enoch Powell scored the top job. ( that will mark me as a racist in some quarters )
I love the UK but can also understand why many of its inhabitants are leaving.

actually, what she did was destroy lives and increase the transfer of power and capital to the wealthy and elite.

i was in Wales under her and saw the violence she created and the communities she destroyed.

Maggie was a bitch and I applaud Elvis Costello's songs about her and her policies. I too would take the opportunity to piss on her grave:

Elvis Costello: "When England was the whore of the world, Margaret was her Madam"

Robert Taylor

19th July 2009, 17:03

actually, what she did was destroy lives and increase the transfer of power and capital to the wealthy and elite.

i was in Wales under her and saw the violence she created and the communities she destroyed.

Maggie was a bitch and I applaud Elvis Costello's songs about her and her policies. I too would take the opportunity to piss on her grave:

Elvis Costello: "When England was the whore of the world, Margaret was her Madam"

Man you are one very obnoxious lefty, nothing to be proud of. Also nothing to be proud of that unless someone agrees with you to the letter you rip them to shreds with your verbal poison.

Those coal mining communities were artificially propped up by previous Governments and you know it. Why dig deeper holes when its no longer profitable to do so?

BTW Michael Heseltine was born in Wales, an infinitely better man than the biggest windbag of all, Neil Kinnock ( he and his wife currently living luxuriously off the public purse, somewhat hypocritical considering their past very public viewpoints )

I can see the good in a lot of people, even though I dont agree with their politics. For example I thought politicians such as Mike Moore, Denis Healey and David Owen were thoroughly decent people.

And while this thread is about Maori claims I quite like Pita Sharples, even though some of his views are off the wall. Heck even the new Green co leader ( That Maori woman lawyer ) I dont subscribe to the Greens pseudo communism but that woman has got a lot of decorum and class when she speaks in Parliament.

So who is a better person, one that is fully blinkered and completely rubbishes opposing viewpoints or one that can see others views?

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 17:15

Man you are one very obnoxious lefty, nothing to be proud of.

Plenty to be proud of when it exposes the ugliness of 'compassionate conservatism' as espoused by a person who calls for fascist policies in NZ and a return to a dictatorship as per Maggie the bitch in Britain.

Also nothing to be proud of that unless someone agrees with you to the letter you rip them to shreds with your verbal poison.

Even prouder when that person regurgitates right wing propaganda and advocates systems that prey on the poor in order to enhance the wealthy

Those coal mining communities were artificially propped up by previous Governments and you know it. Why dig deeper holes when its no longer profitable to do so?

Because maggie the bitch gave them nothing else in place of those jobs.
capitalists ripped the people off and left them high and dry. they were told to abandon their communities; homes their relatives had lived in for generations.
maggie turned her back on their suffering and instead supported the rich and their power structures

BTW Michael Heseltine was born in Wales, an infinitely better man than the biggest windbag of all, Neil Kinnock ( he and his wife currently living luxuriously off the public purse, somewhat hypocritical considering their past very public viewpoints )

anther straw man; who bloody cares

I can see the good in a lot of people, even though I dont agree with their politics. For example I thought politicians such as Mike Moore, Denis Healey and David Owen were thoroughly decent people.

more straw men, oh so dull.

And while this thread is about Maori claims I quite like Pita Sharples, even though some of his views are off the wall. Heck even the new Green co leader ( That Maori woman lawyer ) I dont subscribe to the Greens pseudo communism but that woman has got a lot of decorum and class when she speaks in Parliament.

the greens aren't communist or even pseudo communists and that is why I think you are deluded and a sponge for propaganda; you don't know the meaning of the word but throw it around as if you were an authority.

please provide some examples of green party 'communist' policies

So who is a better person, one that is fully blinkered and completely rubbishes opposing viewpoints or one that can see others views?

you, the blinkered, you are so steeped in your baseless propaganda you even believe it yourself. the elite like people like you, they need as many people as they can get who refuse to see through the veil of bullshit fed to us every day

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 17:17

Labour cam into power by changing their positition in the political compass by taking up the middle ground, which appealed to more of the electorate. Then what happened?

That's correct: Labour in Britain became New Labour and are as right wing as our National Party. Like Roger Douglas, they cheated their constituents and members and created a mockery of the very principles the party was founded on.

Robert Taylor

19th July 2009, 18:04

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 18:31

The real problem with Mr Taylors POV is that he tries to postulate that communism and socialism are the same and that they are the greatest cause of misery while his beloved fascist dictators only mean the best.

The issue isn't even about left and right, that's just more propaganda. The issue is about liberalism versus authoritarianism: the worst abusers in history have been, almost without fail, authoritarian.
Mt Taylors heroine, Maggie Thatcher was one of those as were Hitler, Bush, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

If you want violence, intolerence and abuse, choose an extreme authoritarian every time and that's what you'll get.

This extends to the throw away term 'compassionate conservative'. Given that Mr Taylor continues to advocate a dictator of sorts in NZ and openly supports authoritarian abusers like Thatcher and in the past, Bush; the term is nothing more or less than another snow job.
The politicians he identifies again and again as solutions to NZ's problems are quasi or wanna be dictators, bullies or are backed by dictators and oligarchies; Mr Taylors colours are truly hanging out in the breeze for all to see.

'Compassionate Coservativism' is indeed a bogus term used by those who think the system that supports them is good for all of us; Hitler and the others show it clearly isn't.

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 18:33

Yes,

This thread HAS gone off topic somewhat. However, I refuse to allow bogus political speak go unchallenged and when it is so evident as in the posts of those supporting authoritarianism; i'll attack it every time i see it.

To those positing that authoritarianism is somehow good for all; you'll always be my target

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 18:39

Im not elite and only got where I am through sheer bloody hard work.

More straw men: I too work hard and so do most of the people you and yours attack.

Neither am I wealthy because I help so many people, hardly the mark of a dirty filthy capitalist ripping off the masses, or other such leftist claptrap emotions.

Yawn, the straw men keep coming. You advocate policies and people who DO rip off the common masses.

Given the truly combative and downright obnoxious demeanour of your posts I wouldnt have much faith in your compassion or empathy for anyone and everyone.

At least I reject rather than support dictators and self righteous abusers. I care for others regardless that it would benefit me to take your stance and embrace authoritarianism.

Yes I do indeed throw around the word communist, at about the same frequency as your all enveloping insinuations of fascism.

The difference is that you throw the word at what you call socialism nopt what it is whereas I suggest fascism becausae of the policies and systems you suggest that ARE fascist. The defining basis of fascism is authoritarianism.

Enough said, this is becoming childishly toxic.

Indeed; it invariably does when your factless doctrine is put up to be shot down in flames

Robert Taylor

19th July 2009, 18:51

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 18:55

Now who is being authoritarian???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it seems we have found another word Mr Taylor doesn't understand.

FYI: To advise that one will attack propaganda is not authoritarianism

scracha

19th July 2009, 19:20

it seems we have found another word Mr Taylor doesn't understand.

FYI: To advise that one will attack propaganda is not authoritarianism

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 19:28

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

sure: If Mr Taylor promises not to post his right wing propaganda at every opportunity, I'll promise not to attack it with fact and definition.

What say you Bob?

mossy1200

19th July 2009, 19:33

The Moriori are a Maori tribe. There were no inhabitants in NZ prior to those we now term the 'Maori'. That there was a pre-Maori race called the Moriori is one of a group of stories which can be termed 'Great New Zealand Myths'.
Chris Hughes, 23 July 2000

There are two schools of thought about the Moriori. The more widely accepted is that the Moriori were an earlier wave of migration from the Pacific Islands. They lived peacefully on the Chatham Islands until they were overrun by a later wave of migration, the Maori, who had settled on the mainland of New Zealand.
The minority opinion is that the Moriori were simply a separate iwi (clan) of Maori. This view is widely discredited, although it lingers on in some quarters, and there is truth to the fact that in the Maori language, the repetition of the last syllable of a word often implies ownership (so "Maori" would mean 'people', but "Maori-ori" would mean 'our people'), and this has often been taken as evidence that the Chatham Islanders were simly distinguising themselves from mainland Maori. It is far more likely, however, that the denial of the Moriori as a separate people is simply an attempt at political correctness - an attempt to deny the massacre of the Moriori by invading Maori. The view is most commonly held by Maori and by a small proportion of academics. Certainly you wouldn't get far on the Chathams if you suggested that the Moriori were simply an iwi of Maori! The language, art and customs of the people were different from those on the mainland, and traditional stories put their migration earlier than those of the great migration fleet.

I seem to recall that the Moriori settled in New Zealand first but were eaten by the Maori and hence no Moriori treaty or settlements required with the Moriori.Did the Europeons make a mistake by not eating the Maori people.I also recall it was quite common for a tribe to appear on a beach and sell his neighbours land.LOL

No offence ment or intended.
What you think I said may not be what I intended to say.(Disclaimer)
Food for thought

Bonez

19th July 2009, 19:38

They lived peacefully on the Chatham Islands until they were overrun by a later wave of migration, the Maori, who had settled on the mainland of New Zealand.Good post. The reason the morori became peacefull was that they'd come to the realisation if they kept fighting each other they'd be wiped out in short order. The Maori commisioned colonial ships to go to the Chathams(ok hijacked the first one), pumbled the Moriori and took them as slaves. It's a historical fact. I believe the Waitangi Tribunial turned down maori claims to the Chatham Is for that reason back in 2000. There's a 1920s thesis on the History of the Chatham Is- http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1628 for those interested.

As mention earier in the thread "maori" ment normal and refered to themselves as "tangata maori"- normal people.
"Tangata whenua" also had a different meaning in the past to what it has now as well.

idleidolidyll

19th July 2009, 19:39

Good points and the Moriori are a huge thorn in the Tangata Whenua claim by Maori.

BTW: They didn't just settle in the Chathams, they also lived on the mainland. They survived on the Chathams after they. a very peaceful people, were driven out or killed by Maori (at least that's what Moriori claim).

If Maori claim the settlers from the 1800's on owe them for theft of their lands etc; why not carry that one more step backward and allow Moriori to claim against Maori?

Mr Merde

19th July 2009, 20:10

.......
If Maori claim the settlers from the 1800's on owe them for theft of their lands etc; why not carry that one more step backward and allow Moriori to claim against Maori?

This will never happen because of the very fact that there are non left.

A race\tribe wipped out. The last full blood died in the 1920's (if my memory serves me).

This is a practice that has served a conquering civilisation very well throughout history.

The Romans did this to Carthage, the Greeks to the Trojans. The Mongols did this to all those who opposed them, the Normans completely, over many years, wiped out the earlier British nobility. If you read history there are lots of examples.

Maybe the Europeans biggest mistake was not folloowing the example of history. After all they are responsible for the only recorded sucessful case of genocide in modern history, the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigine, in the mid 19th century.

This may be a lesson for our current politicians. Compassion doesnt pay in the long run. Ruthlessness is the only way to ensure stability. Not necessarily violence but a political ruthlessness. The will to say that enough is enough and make a definite finish to this farce.

b

mossy1200

19th July 2009, 20:26

This will never happen because of the very fact that there are non left.

A race\tribe wipped out. The last full blood died in the 1920's (if my memory serves me).

This is a practice that has served a conquering civilisation very well throughout history.

The Romans did this to Carthage, the Greeks to the Trojans. The Mongols did this to all those who opposed them, the Normans completely, over many years, wiped out the earlier British nobility. If you read history there are lots of examples.

Maybe the Europeans biggest mistake was not folloowing the example of history. After all they are responsible for the only recorded sucessful case of genocide in modern history, the destruction of the Tasmanian aborigine, in the mid 19th century.

This may be a lesson for our current politicians. Compassion doesnt pay in the long run. Ruthlessness is the only way to ensure stability. Not necessarily violence but a political ruthlessness. The will to say that enough is enough and make a definite finish to this farce.

bThe Chatham Islands are renowned for being the last home of the Moriori, their peaceful existence coming to an end in the 1820’s and 1830’s as European and American whalers and sealers began to arrive, not to mention Maori tribes from the mainland. The Moriori are believed to be Polynesians who sailed to the islands from New Zealand between 900AD and 1500AD and since the first arrival of a European in 1791 the population of Moriori dwindled from around 2000 to only 100 by the 1860’s. By the beginning of the 20th century, there were just 12 full-blooded Moriori left, a result of killing, enslavement and interbreeding with the Maori tribes who took over the islands. There are now believed to be over 300 Moriori descendants and today Moriori, Maori and Pakeha (Europeans) live together as Chatham Islanders

Does this mean that these now recognised Moriori descendants now have more claim within the treaty than todays Maori people who are also descendants.

It just seems unbalanced to place the financial load of an injustice onto the NZ Public(alot of which are not descendants of early europeons)to pay another descendant of yester year.

Its seems the same as having to do 15years in prison because your great grandpa killed someone in a bar fight 80years ago.

peasea

19th July 2009, 20:47

and since the first arrival of a European in 1791.

There is much evidence to suggest the Europeans were here long before then. Don't tell the grievance industry that though.

Winston001

19th July 2009, 21:05

I don't have any answers, I don't pretend to know or pontificate a point of view. All I have learnt from a few years in this life is that whatever party is in "power", we get screwed. They all suck up to us at election time promising us what they think we want and then once in power they just ignore those people who elected them and push their own agendas. Any of which has the ultimate objective of keeping them in a position where we are subservient to them.

Probably many people feel the same but politics is more complex than most of us realise. Members of Parliament are not the powerful people we like to think they are. The real power lies with career public servants who can run rings around an MP.

Politicians sometimes have to break their promises because cold hard reality requires that. Actually I want polis who can take hard decisions. Most are far too sensitive to voter noise.

And any committed politician wants to be re-elected so they can continue to work for what they believe in. So they take soft options to keep voters happy. I despise - but understand it.

We want a health system that works, a lifestyle that allows us to enjoy what time we have, an education system that allows us and our descendants to develop and a safe and stable family life that we can be relaxed with.

We are the silent majority and I'm tired of being ignored.

I will vote for anyone or any party that will give me these.

Of course - but what's missing from your wish list is the source of all this public welfare. Where does the money come from? I'd vote for a party that talked straight to our nation, laid it on the line, and encouraged financial leadership.

Bonez

19th July 2009, 21:20

The interesting things you get given while on the internet. I've just been handed a book "Soldering in New Zealand" by Major F.J.W. Gascoyne.

On the interwabbything here:- http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Cow02NewZ.html

Robert Taylor

19th July 2009, 22:16

Can you pair draw up a treaty?

Ive offered like opinions at times and they have been ignored, so my response is ''when hell freezes over''.

Ixion

19th July 2009, 22:36

Speaking as resident Communist, I would not consider Mr Taylor a capitalist. He relies for his income on the labour of his own hands and mind, not on the income from capital, and seeks no protection from the state . If people think his works and products good and worthwhile, they will buy them , and good on them. A merchantilist , maybe, but not a capitalist.

And I rather liked Maggie. The only British Prime Minister in the last centruy (or this) with balls (perhaps excepting Mr Churchill) . No matter what one's political believes , one must admire and respect guts and intelligence.

scracha

20th July 2009, 09:35

Ive offered like opinions at times and they have been ignored, so my response is ''when hell freezes over''.

We need to start a process of reconciliation. Since you're an evil rich capitalist, perhaps give him some compensation (sic).

idleidolidyll

20th July 2009, 17:44

There is much evidence to suggest the Europeans were here long before then. Don't tell the grievance industry that though.

that's possibly true too; sealers and whalers may have been visiting NZ for 100+ years before the arrival of Cook. After all, Abel Tasman stumbled on NZ 130 years before Cook.

The other contentious issue is the archaeological remains in the East Cape supposedly showing European settlement 1000+ years ago: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Who knows, if Maori allowed scientists access to the sites it may disprove the Maori claim: I wonder why they don't get that access................maybe spending a few hundred million exploring those remains could save us billion$ down the track?

NAH! The Treaty is a legal document even if Maori are NOT the original inhabitants.
It might just mean the red haired Maori can claim off the black haired Maori.........

Robert Taylor

20th July 2009, 18:30

that's possibly true too; sealers and whalers may have been visiting NZ for 100+ years before the arrival of Cook. After all, Abel Tasman stumbled on NZ 130 years before Cook.

The other contentious issue is the archaeological remains in the East Cape supposedly showing European settlement 1000+ years ago: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Who knows, if Maori allowed scientists access to the sites it may disprove the Maori claim: I wonder why they don't get that access................maybe spending a few hundred million exploring those remains could save us billion$ down the track?

NAH! The Treaty is a legal document even if Maori are NOT the original inhabitants.
It might just mean the red haired Maori can claim off the black haired Maori.........

That link is very interesting and begs the question why more people are not questioning the validity of maori claims. I particularly like a sentence that ends ''selective yesteryear concepts''.

peasea

20th July 2009, 18:46

that's possibly true too; sealers and whalers may have been visiting NZ for 100+ years before the arrival of Cook. After all, Abel Tasman stumbled on NZ 130 years before Cook.

The other contentious issue is the archaeological remains in the East Cape supposedly showing European settlement 1000+ years ago: http://www.celticnz.co.nz/

Who knows, if Maori allowed scientists access to the sites it may disprove the Maori claim: I wonder why they don't get that access................maybe spending a few hundred million exploring those remains could save us billion$ down the track?

NAH! The Treaty is a legal document even if Maori are NOT the original inhabitants.
It might just mean the red haired Maori can claim off the black haired Maori.........

Exactly right. I've had a nosey around that website (and others such as onenzfoundation) and forgetting any race issues I think every avenue should be explored to find out the true history of this land; I find it all rather curious.

davereid

20th July 2009, 19:01

Exactly right. I've had a nosey around that website (and others such as onenzfoundation) and forgetting any race issues I think every avenue should be explored to find out the true history of this land; I find it all rather curious.

What I find most disturbing about the entire debate, is that it mostly focuses around arrival time. Its almost a case of "my flight number beats your flight number".

All New Zealanders are immigrants, without exception. Maori certainly didnt arrive in one boat, but rather in waves over several generations.

Should there then be a "cut off date" set as to who is tangata whenua ? Or should it be based on race ? (But where does that leave the pacific island immigrant ?)

IMHO we should diligently and honestly attemt to rectify, where practical land thefts and so on.

We should also diligently ignore race and flight number in determining how New Zealnds future evolves.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 19:17

What I find most disturbing about the entire debate, is that it mostly focuses around arrival time. Its almost a case of "my flight number beats your flight number".

All New Zealanders are immigrants, without exception. Maori certainly didnt arrive in one boat, but rather in waves over several generations.

Should there then be a "cut off date" set as to who is tangata whenua ? Or should it be based on race ? (But where does that leave the pacific island immigrant ?)

IMHO we should diligently and honestly attemt to rectify, where practical land thefts and so on.

We should also diligently ignore race and flight number in determining how New Zealnds future evolves.

What about the small issues of colonization and oppression?

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 19:29

Like the morioris right?

Sure - no disputes there. No shifting responsibility though - that's a separate thread

Bonez

20th July 2009, 19:33

It's interesting there where some 1500 odd claims then all of a sudden it doubled prior to sept 2008.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 19:35

It's interesting that proir to Sept 2008 there where some 1500 odd claims then all of a sudden it doubled though.

Wouldn't have something to do with the fact that NZ is nearing the cut off date for the claims process would it?

Bonez

20th July 2009, 19:36

Wouldn't have something to do with the fact that NZ is nearing the cut off date for the claims process would it?Makes one wonder though doesn't it? Hopefully it'll be all wrapped up by the end of the next decade. Hope I'm around to see it.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 19:54

Makes one wonder though doesn't it?

Makes perfect sense to me -

The thing I struggle with is that the party at fault has arbitrarily imposed a date, causing the claims process to be so condensed time-wise when the historical grievances took place over a long period of time.

Bonez

20th July 2009, 19:58

Makes perfect sense to me -

The thing I struggle with is that the party at fault has arbitrarily imposed a date, causing the claims process to be so condensed time-wise when the historical grievances took place over a long period of time.It should be pointed out claims process has been going a few decades now.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 20:00

It should be pointed out claims process has been going a few decades now.

Only two - not many in the scheme of things

Bonez

20th July 2009, 20:06

Only two - not many in the scheme of thingsSo you're saying 20 plus years to get your claims sorted and get the "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed is not enough time?

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 20:09

So 20 plus years to get your claims sorted and get the "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed is not enough time?

You try doing taking a government to court.

Then imagine that the crux your grievance occurred one hundred years ago.

Bonez

20th July 2009, 20:18

You try doing taking a government to court.

Then imagine that the crux your grievance occurred one hundred years ago.There's still been plenty of time to submit them to the Waitangi Tribuneral one would imagine.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 20:21

There's still been plenty of time to submit them to the Waitangi Tribuneral.

According to who? You? And?

Bonez

20th July 2009, 20:24

According to who? You? And?So you're saying twenty years is not enough time to prepare a greivence? Just being devils advacate btw.

It's been quite an educational thread.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 20:34

So you're saying twenty years is not enough time to prepare a greivence?

My response to that was post #463.

I could add other variables such as tribes with less power and resources, dead witnesses, difficulties with producing evidence where it was actively destroyed, having an oral history as opposed to a written one, the massive resources of the crown, the non-binding nature of the tribunal's recommendations, the bottlenecking of claims....etc etc...

but these considerations are inconvenient to someone who isn't really interested in gaining a balanced viewpoint and merely wants to remain entrenched with a particular position

Bonez

20th July 2009, 21:43

My response to that was post #463.

I could add other variables such as tribes with less power and resources, dead witnesses, difficulties with producing evidence where it was actively destroyed, having an oral history as opposed to a written one, the massive resources of the crown, the non-binding nature of the tribunal's recommendations, the bottlenecking of claims....etc etc...

but these considerations are inconvenient to someone who isn't really interested in gaining a balanced viewpoint and merely wants to remain entrenched with a particular positionGood post. With regard to Crown forest and SOE lands the tribunal can and has made binding recommendations for the Crown to return land to Maori.

For those interested the The Maori Purposes Bill 2006 introduced the cut off date of 1 September 2008 for submitting historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

short-circuit

20th July 2009, 22:22

Good post. With regard to Crown forest and SOE lands the tribunal can and has made binding recommendations for the Crown to return land to Maori.

For those interested the The Maori Purposes Bill 2006 introduced the cut off date of 1 September 2008 for submitting historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/conference/movingforward/speech_williams.html

"In large part the Tribunal has no mandatory powers. It reports on grievances but can generally only make recommendations to Government. There are two limited exceptions. The Tribunal can direct that State Enterprise lands be returned to Maori and that Crown Forest lands be returned to Maori (in the latter case together with monetary compensation if that is seen as appropriate). These powers have been used once in the last 15 years. They are seen by the Tribunal as truly exceptional.

Bonez

20th July 2009, 22:25

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/conference/movingforward/speech_williams.html

"In large part the Tribunal has no mandatory powers. It reports on grievances but can generally only make recommendations to Government. There are two limited exceptions. The Tribunal can direct that State Enterprise lands be returned to Maori and that Crown Forest lands be returned to Maori (in the latter case together with monetary compensation if that is seen as appropriate). These powers have been used once in the last 15 years. They are seen by the Tribunal as truly exceptional. So it has been done right? Prior to 2001. And more recently.

This pdf may be of interest/helpfull to some interested in the process http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/B4CEA237-17B0-42B8-B7BC-20872134CEFA/50542/0604ToW7.pdf

Mr Merde

20th July 2009, 23:51

That link is very interesting and begs the question why more people are not questioning the validity of maori claims. I particularly like a sentence that ends ''selective yesteryear concepts''.

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm

Try this site, go to the radical history sectiuon, read it through. make up your own mind

Whynot

21st July 2009, 01:10

Only one man can fix this

<img src="http://sequencek.com/2007/11/12/TheTrooper_Home.jpg">

-Indy

haha, nice :)

davereid

21st July 2009, 09:08

http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htmTry this site, go to the radical history sectiuon, read it through. make up your own mind

I don't particularly see anything radical there. European and Asian explorers had boats well capable of these kinds of trips, and were well able to use them !

The problem is more one of Navigation. Use of celestial navigation allows one to accurately find, chart and return to a given latitude. But until the 15th century, no clocks existed that had sufficient accuracy to determine longitude.

It's very likely that Navigators found their way to this part of the world. But there was no gold, no trade, little arable land - so it was valueless, and would be consigned to a longitude free note in the log book, as the explorer searched for trade and booty.

By the early 15th century, crude clocks existed allowing the land to be mapped and claimed, and of course by 1750, the british had clocks that enabled them to navigate reliably to a few miles.

Maori were almost certainly not the first to arrive in New Zealand.

But they were very likely the first to lack the ability to leave.

Finn

21st July 2009, 09:24

You know, yah gotta give the horries some credit where it's due. Boy do they have the simple white folk wrapped around their fingers.

If I can find one thing that's great about being a first generation New Zullander, it's that I don't have an once of guilt. From where I sit, I see both sides wasting away a perfect opportunity to make this little insignificant Island something great.

So no, I don't buy into the grievance industry, in fact, it has done more harm than good, just like the UN (you would have thought that in 55 years of handouts, all Africans would have iPods by now). What the majority of Maori really need is a good swift kick in the arse. Same goes for a lot of kiwi's while we're at it.

davereid

21st July 2009, 09:28

What about the small issues of colonization and oppression?

Colonisation ?
Merely the arrival of a later immigrant. Thats all we are talking about here. Each wave of arrivals altered the balance of power, and land held by the previous immigrant.

It still happens today, in fact I might take advantage of it and have a kebab for lunch in stead of the raw kina my forefathers may have had.

Oppression ?
Hardly. Land was taken without agreement - pretty standard for all previous immigrants, hardly a new thing, and very standard in the world of the time.

My iwi were overun by Ngati Tuwharetoa. Now I get to pay them to launch my boat at Taupo. Is that oppression ? Should I claim my launch permits back ?

Get real.

Anyway serious work is being done correcting land seizures, the best that can possibly be done without punishing modern New Zealanders for the crimes of their great great grand uncles.

Government was formed, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called oppressive. In fact maori were given special protection with extra seats in Parliament, and still have that advantage.

Maori also enjoy genuine (if not always effective) extra assistance at school, university, and for welfare and health.

Maori have to move forward on their own now.

The modern New Zealander of any heritage is now way past caring about the whining and snivelling of a small number of (part) maori who blame their lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes and high crime rates on my great grandad.

Finn

21st July 2009, 09:32

Colonisation ?

Don't worry, that's just what Short Circuit learned from his oppressed education at University. The "education" that you're paying for.

Finn

21st July 2009, 12:52

This is funny...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2613076/Eviction-tit-for-tat-rages/

peasea

21st July 2009, 13:41

Colonisation ?
Merely the arrival of a later immigrant. Thats all we are talking about here. Each wave of arrivals altered the balance of power, and land held by the previous immigrant.

It still happens today, in fact I might take advantage of it and have a kebab for lunch in stead of the raw kina my forefathers may have had.

Oppression ?
Hardly. Land was taken without agreement - pretty standard for all previous immigrants, hardly a new thing, and very standard in the world of the time.

My iwi were overun by Ngati Tuwharetoa. Now I get to pay them to launch my boat at Taupo. Is that oppression ? Should I claim my launch permits back ?

Get real.

Anyway serious work is being done correcting land seizures, the best that can possibly be done without punishing modern New Zealanders for the crimes of their great great grand uncles.

Government was formed, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called oppressive. In fact maori were given special protection with extra seats in Parliament, and still have that advantage.

Maori also enjoy genuine (if not always effective) extra assistance at school, university, and for welfare and health.

Maori have to move forward on their own now.

The modern New Zealander of any heritage is now way past caring about the whining and snivelling of a small number of (part) maori who blame their lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes and high crime rates on my great grandad.

Absolutely. "Small number" is the clincher here, a vocal, myopic minority who make their whole race look bad. The treaty was about "one people" (Hobson's words) and the version currently bandied about is not what he was citing either.

You also state that Maori "enjoy genuine...extra assistance" etc., so why is that they suffer "lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes" etc.? I have no idea; it must be incredibly frustrating for those who try to point them in the right direction. The only thing Maori and Pacific Islanders seem to embrace these days (a generalisation, sure) is the lifestyle of LA street gangs. We need that like a hole in the head.

Mr Merde

21st July 2009, 14:50

Absolutely. "Small number" is the clincher here, a vocal, myopic minority who make their whole race look bad. The treaty was about "one people" (Hobson's words) and the version currently bandied about is not what he was citing either.

You also state that Maori "enjoy genuine...extra assistance" etc., so why is that they suffer "lack of achievement, poor educational outcomes" etc.? I have no idea; it must be incredibly frustrating for those who try to point them in the right direction. The only thing Maori and Pacific Islanders seem to embrace these days (a generalisation, sure) is the lifestyle of LA street gangs. We need that like a hole in the head.

Why should they succeed? There polititians think that they should go to uni without any quals, the government gives handouts and reparation at the drop of a hat. The greenies and PC brigand are too busy sucking their proverbial dick to notice that they are breaking the third rule of oral sex*.

Why should they do anything when they can just scream "Waitangi Treaty" and have all the tossers jump as high as they are told.

All this in order to look like a feeling and sensitive country.

===============

* The Three rules of Oral Sex

1) I love you
2) The cheque's in the post
3) I WONT cum in your mouth

idleidolidyll

21st July 2009, 19:37

scracha

22nd July 2009, 19:25

I gotta ask this:

Given the strong opinions and beliefs you seem to have about the issue; have any of you ever made a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, attended a hearing, written a letter to your MP on this subjectetc and if so, what was the outcome/reply?

The Tribunal can examine any claim by only Māori then what would be the point? Local MP's have no influence over it and neither would your average joe if they wrote in. Most Tribunal's are heard on Maraes so that instantly puts other races on the backfoot.

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/about/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#3
"Why can't non-Māori make claims to the Tribunal?
Treaty claims must be based on the relationship established in the Treaty of Waitangi between the Treaty partners – the Crown (the Government) and Māori."

See...the point above about the treaty not including all enzeders is a major part of the problem.

idleidolidyll

23rd July 2009, 11:26

The Tribunal can examine any claim by only Māori then what would be the point? Local MP's have no influence over it and neither would your average joe if they wrote in. Most Tribunal's are heard on Maraes so that instantly puts other races on the backfoot.

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/about/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#3
"Why can't non-Māori make claims to the Tribunal?
Treaty claims must be based on the relationship established in the Treaty of Waitangi between the Treaty partners – the Crown (the Government) and Māori."

See...the point above about the treaty not including all enzeders is a major part of the problem.

Wrong: the Tribunal and the Treaty allow for all Kiwis to make submissions and even to make claims. There ARE claims made by non Maori.

If you're serious, I'm certain you'd find a way in