Half-a-billion dollar "Treelord" settlement

[Mully]

Half a BILLION dollars.

As a Treaty Settlement.

No, that's not divisive at all.

Fuckers.

And I've just realised that Ngai Tahu have a 50 fucking year "Top up"clause in their 1994 settlement.

[Steam]

At the risk of being bombarded with the rage of ignorant rednecks who don't know their history, I remind you of these interesting facts, and invite you to consider whether the injustices may not be worth a few billion dollars.

1841
Land Claims Ordinance stated that lands not actually occupied or used by the Māori belonged to the Crown.

1863
Suppression of Rebellion Act. No right to trial before imprisonment. Its intention was to punish 'certain aboriginal tribes of the colony' for rebelling against the Crown.

New Zealand Settlement Act. Over 3 million acres of Māori land was confiscated to pay for the war.

1865
Native Land Court.
Designed to determine ownership. Māori owners had to spend many months in town waiting to have their cases heard. If they did not show up they lost the right to the land. This caused many of them to build up huge debts and they had to sell a lot of their land to pay for them. Māori owners had to pay for any surveying work that had to be done.

1865
Oyster Fisheries Act. Prevented Māori from fishing commercially. Māori Commercial fishing enterprises at the time went broke and they had to sell land to meet their debts.

1865
The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act authorised the issue of proclamations of confiscation. This was used to force unwilling sellers to accept offers for their land under threat of confiscation.

1881
West Coast Settlement Act. Any Māori in Taranaki could be arrested without a warrant and jailed for 2 years with hard labour if he built anything or in any way hindered the surveying of property.

1886
Native Lands Administration Act. Rejected the traditional right of communal ownership. Māori land was given over to small groups of trustees who had the right under this Act to sell it.

1894
Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act. Any pākehā misdealings concerning Māori land were legitimised.

1894
Māori Land Settlement Act. Māori land was put under the control of Land Councils with no Māori representation.

1905
The abolition of Native Councils that had slowed down the Government's land purchases.

1918
Māori servicemen who returned after World War I were not eligible for the benefits of the rehabilitation Scheme.

1953
Māori Affairs Act. If Māori land was not occupied or being used then it was declared 'waste land' and taken by the government.

2004
The Foreshore and Seabed Act makes official the crown's ownership of those areas. This amounted to a confiscation.

[Tank]

read you post with interest.

Still think its a crock of shit.

[Steam]

read you post with interest.
Still think its a crock of shit.
It's interesting eh, I didn't know most of that stuff before we learned about it in History.

My history teacher asked us to think about it this way: What if the Chinese came to NZ now, we let them set up their own government, and then they suddenly started passing laws taking away our land, stopped us from teaching our kids English, and enforced those laws with troops armed with weapons way more advanced than anything we had.

We'd be pissed. We'd still be pissed 150 years later. Hell, it's not even 150 years later, it was just in 1953 that the Maori Affairs Act was passed saying if Maori land was not occupied or being used then it was declared 'waste land' and taken by the government.

A lot of people learn about the injustices and go "Oh hell that's really bad. But it was all so long ago, let's just forgive and forget eh. It wasn't me, it was my great-grandfather."

That's really easy to say when you're on the top of the pile, and less easy to say if every day you see the grandchildren of thieves living on the land their grandfathers stole from you.

[Magua]

At the risk of being bombarded with the rage of ignorant rednecks who don't know their history, I remind you of these interesting facts, and invite you to consider whether the injustices may not be worth a few billion dollars.

1841
Land Claims Ordinance stated that lands not actually occupied or used by the Māori belonged to the Crown.

1863
Suppression of Rebellion Act. No right to trial before imprisonment. Its intention was to punish 'certain aboriginal tribes of the colony' for rebelling against the Crown.

New Zealand Settlement Act. Over 3 million acres of Māori land was confiscated to pay for the war.

1865
Native Land Court.
Designed to determine ownership. Māori owners had to spend many months in town waiting to have their cases heard. If they did not show up they lost the right to the land. This caused many of them to build up huge debts and they had to sell a lot of their land to pay for them. Māori owners had to pay for any surveying work that had to be done.

1865
Oyster Fisheries Act. Prevented Māori from fishing commercially. Māori Commercial fishing enterprises at the time went broke and they had to sell land to meet their debts.

1865
The East Coast Land Titles Investigation Act authorised the issue of proclamations of confiscation. This was used to force unwilling sellers to accept offers for their land under threat of confiscation.

1881
West Coast Settlement Act. Any Māori in Taranaki could be arrested without a warrant and jailed for 2 years with hard labour if he built anything or in any way hindered the surveying of property.

1886
Native Lands Administration Act. Rejected the traditional right of communal ownership. Māori land was given over to small groups of trustees who had the right under this Act to sell it.

1894
Validation of Invalid Land Sales Act. Any pākehā misdealings concerning Māori land were legitimised.

1894
Māori Land Settlement Act. Māori land was put under the control of Land Councils with no Māori representation.

1905
The abolition of Native Councils that had slowed down the Government's land purchases.

1918
Māori servicemen who returned after World War I were not eligible for the benefits of the rehabilitation Scheme.

1953
Māori Affairs Act. If Māori land was not occupied or being used then it was declared 'waste land' and taken by the government.

2004
The Foreshore and Seabed Act makes official the crown's ownership of those areas. This amounted to a confiscation.

New Zealand quota management system, fisheries (1980something). Fisheries nationalised for protection because 'no one owned them'. Article II, Treaty of Waitangi "Her Majesty....confirms and guarentees...the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of land and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties..."

Btw, I know nothing about the treelord deal. I thought I'd just add to the timeline. _b

[MisterD]

That's all very well as an argument, but it buys into the whole separatist state of affairs...why shouldn't soemthing like forestry assets or fisheries be state controlled?

What pisses me off is the use of the word "Government" as if it means some entity which Maori have no say in...now we have a situation where in the case of the South Island all the greenstone belongs to a maori corporation and individual Maori are being imprisioned for "stealing" it. Personally, I don't see much difference to the poor sods at the bottom of the heap, at least they get to vote for a new government every three years.

[Finn]

Fuck, that'll buy them a lot of piss.

[stanko]

So it seems that some forest owners are allowed carbon credits while others had theirs confiscated by the present Govt.

[Skyryder]

If the government had half as much concern for the underprivelded and poverty stricken that are not under the protection of the 'Treaty,' as for those that are, I might be little more sympathetic to Treaty issues.

Skyryder

[Scouse]

Fuck, that'll buy them a lot of piss.and cigarettes

[riffer]

and cigarettes


Fuck, that'll buy them a lot of piss.

I think you'll find the people who negotiated the deal have nothing to do with those who waste their money on booze and fags.

You might be better advised to read about why such a large proportion of a population ended up resorting to alcohol (and to a lesser extent) child abuse. The NZ formula is by no means a unique one; however, our attempts to resolve it are fairly unique.

Put into context the amount of reparations in no way comes close to the amount of harm done over the course of history.

[sAsLEX]

stuff and things about the other side

What I find interesting is the talk of access.

Who has been up Mt Tarawera lately?

[Mully]

I think you'll find the people who negotiated the deal have nothing to do with those who waste their money on booze and fags.

Put into context the amount of reparations in no way comes close to the amount of harm done over the course of history.

Riffer, I'm responding in reverse order, cos I'm not smart enough to mess around with quotes.

That's debatable. My ancestry is from England and Scotland. When can my Scottish side expect reparation from the English for however many years of oppressive rule?? Or the English from the Romans?? At what point do you say "Fuck it, that's the way the world was at the time"?

Regardless, this settlement will do nothing to help "everyday" Maori (my laptop can't do the little sign on the "a", sorry Steam) leading the country in:
Alcoholism
Child Abuse (and killings)
Leaving School with little to no qualifications
Teen pregnancy
Drugs
Crime

The Maori I know personally are hard working, honest people struggling to be good parents like most parents in NZ.

This $500,000,000 will be "managed" by the "Leaders" of the Tribe, who will probably invest in smart things (Like the Warriors league team) and working class (and lower) Maori will get precisely no benefit from it.

I don't know what the answer to Maori's problems are, but throwing half a billion at them (which most will never see) can't be it. And will only cause resentment for all other NZ'ers who are struggling.

And how many Carbon Credits were Maori trading in 1840 or earlier???

[sAsLEX]

And how many Carbon Credits were Maori trading in 1840 or earlier???

Dont forget they owned the radio spectrum as well, and the airspace above their lakes.


And don't mention the Moa either.

[McJim]

so does this mean the British Government is about to make reparations for all the North Sea oil and gas profits from over the past 3 decades too?

[El Dopa]

so does this mean the British Government is about to make reparations for all the North Sea oil and gas profits from over the past 3 decades too?

Only if you apologise for Braveheart.

[Magua]

why shouldn't soemthing like forestry assets or fisheries be state controlled?


Depends on your viewpoint. Fisheries QMS was brought in because people were over fishing (well, that's the reason they gave).

When it came to allocating quotas, they handed them out on a catch quantity basis. Basically, those who had the biggest catches between '82 and '82 (not sure on the years) received the biggest quotas. So then these fishermen went out and caught as much as they possibly could to receive large quotas, 85% of the quota system controlled by 12 companies.

There's a reason for not letting the government control it _b

[sAsLEX]

Depends on your viewpoint. Fisheries QMS was brought in because people were over fishing (well, that's the reason they gave).



And watch Coastwatch and see who plunders undersized Paua et al. and ruins ecosystems....... did I hear someone mention the Moa.......

[Scouse]

so does this mean the British Government is about to make reparations for all the North Sea oil and gas profits from over the past 3 decades too?So are you saying that the Scotts are the Maoris of Britan

[Sanx]

That's debatable. My ancestry is from England and Scotland. When can my Scottish side expect reparation from the English for however many years of oppressive rule?? Or the English from the Romans?? At what point do you say "Fuck it, that's the way the world was at the time"?

Meh? Is that all? My surname is anglo-saxon, dating from Warwickshire before the Norman Conquest. That's on my dad's side. My mother's family originates from the Baltic states, but as they're all Jews, who knows where the fook they come from before that.

As I see it then, I have lots of people and governments I can sue for confiscation of lands my ancestors had traditional ownership of or customary rights to. The Vikings (all Scandinavian governments) and the Normans (the French) will have had a negative effect on the presumed wealth of my father's ancestors - yes, for all I know they were lowly serfs, but that's not the point. As for my mother's family ... well, it's hard to know where to start. The Germans, the Poles, the Cossacks, the Russians - they'll all have to be sued too.

Treaty claims, and therefore settlements, are a crock of shite. Nowhere else in the world has had a system of compensating the natives for land taken during colonisation, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe, and look how well that's gone.

Before whitey turned up in this country, the Maori were a stone-age canabalistic society with no formal governance or structure outside of the Iwi; and that governance took the form of a lord / serf arrangement. Internecine feuds were commonplace, with many tribes displaced from lands they held or simply wiped out completely. (As soon as one tribe got guns, the first thing they did was attack the next Iwi over to take their land.) Whilst Maori like to portray themselves as a peaceful people with an advanced well-established culture, they weren't. They hadn't discovered the wheel, let alone such other niceties as the written word. There were massive differences in language from one region to another as well as in other traditional cultural activites and customs. Maori hadn't even been in New Zealand that long, in the grand scheme of things. No-one really knows when the seven great waka arrived - or in fact how many great waka there actually were - somewhere between 800AD and 1300AD is usually quoted, with Maori generally claiming they got here towards the early part of that period to try to further legitimise their claims against the Crown.

The issue of whether or not the Moriori were here first, or devolved from the Maori population as a whole, is unknown. The commonly-held belief that they were here prior to Maori and were wiped out or displaced by Maori, thus negating any tangata whenua-based claims, has since been revised with the common thinking that Moriori settled just the Chatham Islands at the same time as the Maori settled New Zealand. Their physical and genetic simlarity to Maori makes analysis of bones very difficult, so no-one actually knows. What is absolutely certain is that the virtual extinction of the Moriori was primarily caused by Maori invasions of the Chathams. Although the population declined once whitey turned up with their exotic diseases and started hunting the seals that formed a large part of the Moriori's diet, the biggest decline came from massacre at the hands of Taranaki Maori. In 1835, two ships carrying 900 armed Maori arrived in the Chathams. The Moriori were enslaved or slaughtered. Moriori were forbidden to marry or breed with other Moriori. Between 1835 (whitey arrived in 1791) and 1862, the population declined from 2000 to only 101 full-blooded individuals. The last full-blooded Moriori died in 1933. My point in saying all this? The confiscation of the Chathams and the slaughter and enslavement of its inhabitants was acceptable according to Maori culture at the time. They saw nothing wrong with it. To my knowledge the Iwi responsible for the Chatham invasion (Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama) have never apologised for their actions, let alone paid out compensation. Should such acts have been carried out by whitey on Maori, you can be certain there'd be numerous claims for substantial compensation.

Loss of traditional land and customs is often blamed for Maori's over-representation in just about every negative statistic going: child abuse, alcoholism and drug-abuse, prison population, life-expectancy, illiteracy, unemployment, etc. Well, contrary to what many Maori activists would like to claim, customs and language cannot be passed down through genetics. The vast majority of today's activists did not have land taken from them. The vast majority of such acts did not occur in the lifetimes of today's activists' parents. The grievances they have are therefore not raised from the loss of something they (as individuals, not as a culture) once possessed, but more a passed-down sense of aggrievement. The failure of modern Maori to adjust, as thousands of cultures and peoples have done all over the world, is blamed on this one thing. If we'd had our lands we could of, should of would of been OK.

The difference between Maori and the thousands of other peoples in a similar position round the world is that there was that Treaty. Ignoring the small fact that not all Iwi chiefs signed it (though that's never stopped those Iwi making claims under it, funnily enough). Maori were happy to conquer other Iwi, confiscate their land and slaughter and enslave their people. That was the Maori way and in keeping with their culture and customs. The rules that Maori today want to retrospectively apply to whitey do not apply to them themselves. One only has to look at the spat between various Iwi over who 'owned' the lands around the Hauraki gulf to see an example of this inconsistency. Now there are great wads of cash up for grabs, there are different Iwi fighting over who should get it. The greatest hypocrisy comes from the Iwi that came out on top way back when, with their modern descendants claiming the land was theirs by right of conquest. Well, in that case, why can't the right of conquest be applied to whitey coming and taking it over only a few years later?

The whole Treaty issue has grown into a gravy train machine designed to extract as much money and land out of the government. It's existence is divisive to the nation as a whole. The best outcome would be for the whole thing to be abolished and the Treaty of Waitangi written out of legislation and relegated to a status it should have occupied years back; an interesting relic.

[Sanx]

So are you saying that the Scotts are the Maoris of Britan

Based upon per-capita consumption of lard, fags and booze - yup.

[McJim]

Only if you apologise for Braveheart.

He's always apologising for summat isn't he?

So are you saying that the Scotts are the Maoris of Britan

That was pretty much what I was hinting at. Ever been to a housing scheme in Wester Hailes, Easterhouse, Drumchapel, South Nitshill, Blackhill etc?

[Steam]

The best outcome would be for the whole thing to be abolished and the Treaty of Waitangi written out of legislation and relegated to a status it should have occupied years back; an interesting relic.

Aside from being illegal, requiring the consent of both parties who signed it, it'd be a disaster for New Zealand.

A small group of people are already angry, it wouldn't take too much to push the extremists over the edge.
I don't think you realise how angry some people are out there.
Look at the amateurish and hilarious Urewera "terrorist training camps".
What if they had actually been competent, careful, secret, and had been training terrorists, teaching people how to make bombs, cover their tracks, organise properly.

How expensive is a ton of fertilizer? How much is a 200 litres of diesel? You don't need to be very organised either. Three or four people who knew enough not to talk.

They would've wreaked havoc.
And of course then there'd be crackdowns and revenge on maori communities etc, and can you say Hello Northern Ireland?

A legal, equitable settlement through the Waitangi Tribunal is our best chance of getting out of this without violence.

[homer]

Riffer, I'm responding in reverse order, cos I'm not smart enough to mess around with quotes.

That's debatable. My ancestry is from England and Scotland. When can my Scottish side expect reparation from the English for however many years of oppressive rule?? Or the English from the Romans?? At what point do you say "Fuck it, that's the way the world was at the time"?

Regardless, this settlement will do nothing to help "everyday" Maori (my laptop can't do the little sign on the "a", sorry Steam) leading the country in:
Alcoholism
Child Abuse (and killings)
Leaving School with little to no qualifications
Teen pregnancy
Drugs
Crime

The Maori I know personally are hard working, honest people struggling to be good parents like most parents in NZ.

This $500,000,000 will be "managed" by the "Leaders" of the Tribe, who will probably invest in smart things (Like the Warriors league team) and working class (and lower) Maori will get precisely no benefit from it.

I don't know what the answer to Maori's problems are, but throwing half a billion at them (which most will never see) can't be it. And will only cause resentment for all other NZ'ers who are struggling.

And how many Carbon Credits were Maori trading in 1840 or earlier???

EXACTLY : never want anything till its going to make money A

[Mully]

How much is a 200 litres of diesel?

About $1000 if you listen to my trucking companies. Bastards keep raising their fuel surcharges.


A legal, equitable settlement through the Waitangi Tribunal is our best chance of getting out of this without violence.

Equitable to who?? That's my whole point. This "settlement" is not going to help Billy and Jo Hohepa raise their kids. It's more likely to piss them off, with fuel and food prices going through the roof.

[cowpoos]

Half a BILLION dollars.

As a Treaty Settlement.

No, that's not divisive at all.

Fuckers.

And I've just realised that Ngai Tahu have a 50 fucking year "Top up"clause in their 1994 settlement.

In the Grand scheme of things...let it go!! the government have appeased a wrong..trying to make it rightr...and half a billion dollars is not at all a large sum of money!! the treasury looses and finds amounts similar within weeks!! and besides..its like $125 dollars per person!! and its not like the money will be sitting dead in a bank acount somewhere..it will be staright back into the economy in some form or another..

If you want a group of people to whinge about...how about middle income NZ that has a heap of bills and hire purchases they can't afford...drive pretentious cars...have 3-4 kids...earn a good income...but also clain 100-300 a week in 'WORKING FOR FAMILIES' I mean for fuck sake...if you and your partner decide to have children...step up and be a fucking role model to them and look after them by you own devices!!! sort your finances out..because normal socially responsibe citizens get sick of handouts for the sake of it!!

I over heard a conversation a while back...this Fella has a wife and 5 kids..nothing wrong with that..he calims $280 a week from working for families shit on top of his wage...now thats what happens...the funny bit...a few mins later he starts whigning about his tax's going to low life bums!!

daft prick.....anyway.

[avgas]

That's really easy to say when you're on the top of the pile, and less easy to say if every day you see the grandchildren of thieves living on the land their grandfathers stole from you.
And what about those of us that have moved here in the last 150 years, bought land legitimately and not only worked the land, but also work for the country making it to the position that it is no. Are you saying the fact the land was obtained illegally and purchased legitimately that there are no rights to the new owner.
Sorry your argument is flawed purely in the fact that Maori were here only twice as long as we have. So they have the same rights as the rest of us - its called equality.
Yes i agree the Maori are innocent victims, but right now they are not setting levels of acceptance in treaty disputes, and the only way all the tribes will be happy according to your logic is to reverse the last 150 years. Making 3.7 million more innocent victims call the non-maori NZers.
I'm sorry i feel that Maori deserve nothing from NZ and its people, they have an issue with the crown (which a good 90% of NZ do not support anymore), they should go to queenie and sort it out with her.
As for your reference to chinese invading NZ, i suggest both you and your teacher research china a bit more - in particular the american/french/latin/japanese conssessions in china, the rape of Nanking, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mongonlia, Tibet, the 1000's of political movements......then you realise that not only has china had its fair share of shit - but it also has moved forwards for the better of the country. Where as NZ is lets the minority DICTATE our lives.

[avgas]

[size=4] the treasury looses and finds amounts similar within weeks!! and besides..its like $125 dollars per person!! and its not like the money will be sitting dead in a bank acount somewhere..it will be staright back into the economy in some form or another..
Haha this is classic - while i think the rest of your comment it a bit borderline for me. I felt this is well put.
As for the forget it part poo's, mabey your right. And I'll tell you what if they stop claiming i will also forget.
But i have a feeling that my great grandchildren will still be sorting this shit out.

[avgas]

And of course then there'd be crackdowns and revenge on maori communities etc, and can you say Hello Northern Ireland?
Nah they stopped before us. Forgive and forget

[mangell6]

The best outcome would be for the whole thing to be abolished and the Treaty of Waitangi written out of legislation and relegated to a status it should have occupied years back; an interesting relic.

and other relics like the NZ Constitution!


There is a major difference between being "conquered" and negotiating a treaty. i.e. not conquered.

Not being so good at history, but I seem to remember that only individual landowners (the male) were allowed to vote in the 19th century. Maori do not have a concept of individual ownership therefore cannot vote.

Good to see that at least someone can get one over the government for a change.

[PirateJafa]

Put into context the amount of reparations in no way comes close to the amount of harm done over the course of history.

Oh bollocks.

You should also factor in the umpteen-thousand-years worth of technological development they gained access to.

Going from beating each other to death with rocks tied to the end of sticks to running each other over in Honda Civics with cut springs and tin-can exhausts in a mere couple hundred years has got to be worth something right?

Personally, I have always advocated the Maori being able to have free/exclusive/priority use of their traditional fishing grounds etc. But as long as they use traditional methods. Spears and wakas for fishing, and so forth, y'know.

Fair is fucking fair. Except, apparently, in New Zealand.

[Coyote]

'WORKING FOR FAMILIES'[/size]
Rest assured my family never got any government support. Not since my Dad was made redundant and my mum was fired for being pregnant with me and we went on the dole for a while. National got rid of supporting families through rough times when we were in a rough time.

Now Labour, having not pushed the tax brackets up means my Dad just edges over into the highest tax bracket by a couple hundred dollars so gets taxed back to the salary of a checkout chick, but also means he's supposedly rich enough to not need Working for Families help. This while power, food, petrol, rates, etc. go up.

My mum also did her bit for the brief time she was on the dole. She had to pay 120% of her income in tax due to an error in the system so she was paying to work.

[Coyote]

I'm not even sure if my ancestors came here early on and were to blame for land being stolen. Possibly they did. I ought to find out. However today's generation of Maori have a similar complacency to their past. Few of them go further than learning their native swear words. And rather than wear grass skirts they wear hoodies. But they all seem pretty keen to subscribe to the idea that they're "hard done by", much like their African American brothers.

One of their main claims to why the treaty was such a great injustice was they had no understanding of money or selling off land because land wasn't owned by anyone. So to owe them back we ought to give them back the land so they own it plus a lot of money.

The Maori have been westernised. Genetically and culturally.


I would also be more sensitive if the children were brought up properly instead of becoming bullies at school giving us "white pigs" shit for our skin colour and calling us racist.

[Sanx]

Aside from being illegal, requiring the consent of both parties who signed it, it'd be a disaster for New Zealand.

It would not be illegal. One can, using legislation, invalidate or supercede prior legal documents including treaties.


A small group of people are already angry, it wouldn't take too much to push the extremists over the edge.
I don't think you realise how angry some people are out there.
Look at the amateurish and hilarious Urewera "terrorist training camps".
What if they had actually been competent, careful, secret, and had been training terrorists, teaching people how to make bombs, cover their tracks, organise properly.

Oh, I do know how angry some people are but their anger does not change the fact that Maori are a relatively small minority in this country and they should not be treated any differently to any other New Zealander, no matter how recently they arrived on these shores. However, the reason they're angry has never been adequately explained by the government or by the representatives of the peoples themselves, other than in broad-brush terms like "redressing past wrongs". The anger seems to stem purely from the fact that they might have owned something or had rights to do something had something else not happened to their ancestors a long time ago. To blame high prison rates and drug abuse on injustices that they themselves did not suffer is irrational.


They would've wreaked havoc.
And of course then there'd be crackdowns and revenge on maori communities etc, and can you say Hello Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland is a very different kettle of fish though there are some similarities. The IRA and other republican (not Catholic) terrorist groups have never stated that they wanted the lands taken from their forebears returned or compensation paid to them for the loss; they simply wanted (want) Northern Ireland merged into the Republic of Ireland. They wanted an end to British rule.


A legal, equitable settlement through the Waitangi Tribunal is our best chance of getting out of this without violence.

But compensation would not be 'getting out of this' at all. Look how the Treaty has entered almost every aspect of governance. Maori custom and opinions must be considered before anything happens, whether it's building a new motorway or carrying out pharmaceutical trials under the auspices of a DHB. You can't move in certain government departments without meeting with Iwi representatives to ensure something might not offend some small point of Maori culture that hitherto hadn't actually existed. The Treaty industry is not just about obtaining vast wads of cash, it's about ensuring that Maori have a disproportionate voice in a society where they are a minority. And all of this stems from that one little document and Maori's belief that they are somehow entitled to all of this purely because they got to NZ a little before someone else.

[sAsLEX]

Look at the amateurish and hilarious Urewera "terrorist training camps".
What if they had actually been competent, careful, secret, and had been training terrorists, teaching people how to make bombs, cover their tracks, organise properly.


That would mean they probably would of had to stay in school past 4th form.............


I think the most dangerous terrorists would have to be Engineers....... I would say that....... I could cripple the Auckland without too much effort if I was that way inclined and it wouldn't take much either.

[sAsLEX]

But compensation would not be 'getting out of this' at all. Look how the Treaty has entered almost every aspect of governance. Maori custom and opinions must be considered before anything happens, whether it's building a new motorway or carrying out pharmaceutical trials under the auspices of a DHB. You can't move in certain government departments without meeting with Iwi representatives to ensure something might not offend some small point of Maori culture that hitherto hadn't actually existed. The Treaty industry is not just about obtaining vast wads of cash, it's about ensuring that Maori have a disproportionate voice in a society where they are a minority. And all of this stems from that one little document and Maori's belief that they are somehow entitled to all of this purely because they got to NZ a little before someone else.

I did note the backlash from NZ First wanting to reduce immigration and how they were called racist.

NZ has a racist legislation. We are Bi-cultural. Sorry all you Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Indian, British, Pakistanis, Arabs, Americans, French et al but you do not count in NZ. And this is not racist. But NZ First saying it wants to curb the immigration is?

[avgas]

I would also be more sensitive if the children were brought up properly instead of becoming bullies at school giving us "white pigs" shit for our skin colour and calling us racist.
Those ones go overseas. Dont sweat it too much mate. When education fails on people (at home) they usually dont surmount to anything. And grow up as nothing, that cant be bothered doing anything about it.
I hold solace in the though of self-fulfilling prophecies with people i do not care for.
As they go down you can only go up.

[avgas]

I think the most dangerous terrorists would have to be Engineers....... I would say that....... I could cripple the Auckland without too much effort if I was that way inclined and it wouldn't take much either.
Haha you should really read "Atlas Shrugged", it may give you an interesting insight.

[Hitcher]

It should be possible to have a discussion on this topic without resorting to cheap racial stereotyping and other related slander. If this degenerates to a race-based Maori-bashing thread, it will be moved to PD.

Final warning.

[avgas]

There are 1000's of Maori out there that do themselves good.
I have worked with some Maori that are the hardest workers out there.
Lets aim the crap at the paper work and the assholes holding it.

[Ixion]

That would mean they probably would of had to stay in school past 4th form.............


I think the most dangerous terrorists would have to be Engineers....... I would say that....... I could cripple the Auckland without too much effort if I was that way inclined and it wouldn't take much either.

No, chemists or microbiologists. Killing Auckland beats crippling it in the terrorism stakes.

[sAsLEX]

No, chemists or microbiologists. Killing Auckland beats crippling it in the terrorism stakes.

Who makes the chemicals? Who designs the dispersion methods of chemicals?

[riffer]

Oh bollocks.

You should also factor in the umpteen-thousand-years worth of technological development they gained access to.

Going from beating each other to death with rocks tied to the end of sticks to running each other over in Honda Civics with cut springs and tin-can exhausts in a mere couple hundred years has got to be worth something right?

Personally, I have always advocated the Maori being able to have free/exclusive/priority use of their traditional fishing grounds etc. But as long as they use traditional methods. Spears and wakas for fishing, and so forth, y'know.

Fair is fucking fair. Except, apparently, in New Zealand.

Sigh.

People like you also still think that Democracy American style is the best thing that's happened to Iraq. <_<

At the time of Pakeha settlement the Europeans weren't that far ahead technically. In fact as far as sustainable argricultural development goes the Maori had it all over the settlers. Take away Te Rauparaha and his mates and there wasn't a huge amount of head-bashing by the mid 19th century either.

It could definitely be argued that the vast majority of technological development has come after the treaty.

As for fairness, you show me the relevant clause in New Zealand or English legislation that points out that the law must be fair. Hell, show me the clause in the Magna Carta.

This has to be one of the most narrow-minded idiotic posts I've heard in a long time. I suggest you actually go and read some history and find out what really happened. And then try and discuss this topic. Because you're coming across like a New Zealand First voter.

[Coyote]

Those ones go overseas. Dont sweat it too much mate. When education fails on people (at home) they usually dont surmount to anything. And grow up as nothing, that cant be bothered doing anything about it.
I hold solace in the though of self-fulfilling prophecies with people i do not care for.
As they go down you can only go up.
I'm aware of that. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=dumbassjocks

Maori, as a race, aren't the problem. It's the popular 'gangsta' culture that many of them adhere to, as well as many other people of many other racial backgrounds. And it's not just the youth, the parents are joining in too, wanting to be seen as cool to their hundreds of hell spawn. Plus many other dropkicks rather than working choose to strut around town with bandanas on. Greed is becoming good again with emphasis on bling, spending exorbitant amounts of money on material for image rather than survival and gang violence is common despite there being no reason for conflict other than the colours some of them choose to wear.

Gah!

[Swoop]

Aside from being illegal, requiring the consent of both parties who signed it, it'd be a disaster for New Zealand.

A legal, equitable settlement through the Waitangi Tribunal is our best chance of getting out of this without violence.
Getting rid of it would be the best thing that allows this country to move ahead.

....... cripple the Auckland without too much effort if I was that way inclined and it wouldn't take much either.
This is why Ken Mair was watched closely during his fun and games. Ex bubblehead.

[Scouse]

Sigh.
Because you're coming across like a New Zealand First voter.There's nothing wrong with voting for New Zealand First.

[riffer]

There's nothing wrong with voting for New Zealand First.

If one first excludes Winston Peters.

[riffer]

Getting rid of it would be the best thing that allows this country to move ahead.

Getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi and replacing it with what?

Leave a legislative vacuum and you could very easily end up with another Yugoslavia. Don't think it wouldn't happen.

[Swoop]

Getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi and replacing it with what?
Why replace it? We have a set of rules that are supposed to govern all sectors of our society.
We need to start using them as such.

[Ocean1]

Fact is usually the first victim when discussing historical grievances. As usual proponents of any policy relating to the treaty strive to ignore inconvenient facts. Some of the results of such policy are ludicrous, health care workers can spend up to 30% of their training on cultural sensitivity, with some of the texts outrageously biased. Maori applicants for positions at medical school need fewer credits than non-Maori, just one of many examples of “positive discrimination”.

There’s no doubt the treaty was a clumsy and internally contradictory piece of work. It’s broad intent however was, by most accounts understood by signatories at the time. Little doubt also that most Maori leaders were happy at the prospect of British rule, they were deeply worried about the possibility of a French annexation at the time, amongst other things.

Much as it's obvious that early colonial authorities took serious liberties with some aspects of the document what I find most offensive about the treaty in the modern context is the extent to which we’ve been exposed to some horrific, truly odious and largely successful social engineering and manipulation by supporters of the grievance industry.

The book “Travesty of Waitangi” by Stuart Scott should be part of the education syllabus along side some of the current carefully crafted populous crap. As should “Guns, Steel and Germs” by Jared Diamond, simply because it puts NZ's history into context beside the more usual fate of both cultures in other such examples of empirical expansion.

[spookytooth]

http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm some interesting reading

[riffer]

That's the trouble with multiple versions of a document spookytooth - they're all subtly different. And the subtle differences can be reinterpreted in a fashion never intended by the original writers.

The same situation can be seen in the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and how these amendments can be used to justify all sorts of apalling behaviour. The first Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is a fine example.

Also unfortunately, when you have a version cobbled together from multiple sources and represented as the official version you end up with something not a lot better than the King James Bible.

Still, its the official version and we have to live with it at the moment (much like the King James Bible but that's another completely separate discussion).

[PirateJafa]

People like you also still think that Democracy American style is the best thing that's happened to Iraq. <_<...

[ramblings]

...Because you're coming across like a New Zealand First voter.

Now, now, Mr. Riffer. Take a deep breath.

Obviously you have never been taught what a hyperbole is, or how it is used to reinforce a argument.

For instance, I didn't really mean that every Maori ran each other over in Honda Civics with chopped springs and cheap sound systems. Obviously there are one or two who couldn't get the finance.

We can safely ignore your Iraq comment, because as you do not know me or, evidently, my views on Iraq, you are talking completely out of your arse.

Anyway, on to what little substance your post actually contained.

You believe the Europeans were only marginally ahead of the Maori at the time of settlement? How do you work this out? By my reckoning, the Europeans were winning this game with knowledge of writing, masonry, economics, metallurgy, medicine, mathematics, machinery, gunpowder... and those are just the first dozen off the top of my head.

And sure, some technological devlopment has taken place since the treaty. However, where has this come from? My point exactly.

"As for fairness, you show me the relevant clause in New Zealand or English legislation that points out that the law must be fair. Hell, show me the clause in the Magna Carta." I am afraid this sentence of yours undermines your very own argument. Yes indeed, why should the law be fair? Fuck the Maori. Note: This is not my personal views, I am just pointing out how poorly Riffer has thought out his argument.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not automatically mean they are a poorly educated redneck, my friend. :)

[riffer]

For instance, I didn't really mean that every Maori ran each other over in Honda Civics with chopped springs and cheap sound systems. Obviously there are one or two who couldn't get the finance.

Hyperbole, or racism? It's arguable, for sure.

hy·per·bo·le http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png /haɪˈpɜrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun Rhetoric. <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">obvious and intentional exaggeration. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”</td></tr></tbody></table>
rac·ism http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png <script type="text/javascript">A[ var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "18", "http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/", "6"); interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high"); interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false"); interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t"); interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FR00%2FR0009800.mp3"); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]> </script><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionar y%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FR00%2FR0009800.mp3" align="top" height="18" width="17"><noscript>http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/R00/R0009800)</noscript> /ˈreɪhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngsɪzhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.</td></tr></tbody></table>
On this count, I'll give you the hyperbole, because it's too clumsy to be outright racism.


You believe the Europeans were only marginally ahead of the Maori at the time of settlement? How do you work this out? By my reckoning, the Europeans were winning this game with knowledge of writing, masonry, economics, metallurgy, medicine, mathematics, machinery, gunpowder... and those are just the first dozen off the top of my head.

By my reckoning, there's a number of Asian inventions on that list. Then again, we'll have to give the Europeans the benefit of the doubt on whether they stole those ideas or independently invented them. (that's hyperbole too).


And sure, some technological devlopment has taken place since the treaty. However, where has this come from? My point exactly.

Sorry, you're saying that the only worthwhile post-treaty technology has come from the hands of white people? That's a broad call...

Just because someone does not agree with you does not automatically mean they are a poorly educated redneck, my friend. :)

I never said you were poorly educated. After all some of the most idiotic of arguments have historically come from the most educated of people (of many colours).

[PirateJafa]

Hyperbole, or racism? It's arguable, for sure.

[snip for clarity]

On this count, I'll give you the hyperbole, because it's too clumsy to be outright racism.

The difference between hyperbole and racism is the same as between Billy Connolly and Stalin (Godwin's Law took a near miss there). One is serious, the other decidedly less so.

The problem here is that finely tuned sarcasm can be very hard for some people to detect on the internet. If you had read that in the tone I had intended, and most other people read it as, I suspect we would not be here arguing semantics?

You say it was too clumsy to be racism? You are wrong. It was so blatantly exaggerated so that people wouldn't mistake it for racism, and so that we would avoid this very sort of argument.

And yet, despite you even stating that you can see this, you still go and deliberately mis-read my words to suit your view.

The mind boggles.


By my reckoning, there's a number of Asian inventions on that list. Then again, we'll have to give the Europeans the benefit of the doubt on whether they stole those ideas or independently invented them. (that's hyperbole too).

Sorry, you're saying that the only worthwhile post-treaty technology has come from the hands of white people? That's a broad call...

I suppose with enough imagination and creativity you could get that out of my words, but you would certainly have to work at it.

I was quite careful not to state that the Europeans "invented" them, but that they "had knowledge of" the technologies. A small, but fairly important difference.


I never said you were poorly educated.


I suggest you actually go and read some history and find out what really happened.

Having a poor knowledge of history is, in my mind, having a poor education. Without a good grasp of history, you do not know who we are, how we got here, why we are here, and most importantly, where we are to go from the present.

Maybe not everyone agrees with that idea, but I do.


After all some of the most idiotic of arguments have historically come from the most educated of people (of many colours).

The same could go for some the most reasoned arguments?

[sitting duck]

Meh? Is that all? My surname is anglo-saxon, dating from Warwickshire before the Norman Conquest. That's on my dad's side. My mother's family originates from the Baltic states, but as they're all Jews, who knows where the fook they come from before that.

As I see it then, I have lots of people and governments I can sue for confiscation of lands my ancestors had traditional ownership of or customary rights to. The Vikings (all Scandinavian governments) and the Normans (the French) will have had a negative effect on the presumed wealth of my father's ancestors - yes, for all I know they were lowly serfs, but that's not the point. As for my mother's family ... well, it's hard to know where to start. The Germans, the Poles, the Cossacks, the Russians - they'll all have to be sued too.

Treaty claims, and therefore settlements, are a crock of shite. Nowhere else in the world has had a system of compensating the natives for land taken during colonisation, with the possible exception of Zimbabwe, and look how well that's gone.

Before whitey turned up in this country, the Maori were a stone-age canabalistic society with no formal governance or structure outside of the Iwi; and that governance took the form of a lord / serf arrangement. Internecine feuds were commonplace, with many tribes displaced from lands they held or simply wiped out completely. (As soon as one tribe got guns, the first thing they did was attack the next Iwi over to take their land.) Whilst Maori like to portray themselves as a peaceful people with an advanced well-established culture, they weren't. They hadn't discovered the wheel, let alone such other niceties as the written word. There were massive differences in language from one region to another as well as in other traditional cultural activites and customs. Maori hadn't even been in New Zealand that long, in the grand scheme of things. No-one really knows when the seven great waka arrived - or in fact how many great waka there actually were - somewhere between 800AD and 1300AD is usually quoted, with Maori generally claiming they got here towards the early part of that period to try to further legitimise their claims against the Crown.

The issue of whether or not the Moriori were here first, or devolved from the Maori population as a whole, is unknown. The commonly-held belief that they were here prior to Maori and were wiped out or displaced by Maori, thus negating any tangata whenua-based claims, has since been revised with the common thinking that Moriori settled just the Chatham Islands at the same time as the Maori settled New Zealand. Their physical and genetic simlarity to Maori makes analysis of bones very difficult, so no-one actually knows. What is absolutely certain is that the virtual extinction of the Moriori was primarily caused by Maori invasions of the Chathams. Although the population declined once whitey turned up with their exotic diseases and started hunting the seals that formed a large part of the Moriori's diet, the biggest decline came from massacre at the hands of Taranaki Maori. In 1835, two ships carrying 900 armed Maori arrived in the Chathams. The Moriori were enslaved or slaughtered. Moriori were forbidden to marry or breed with other Moriori. Between 1835 (whitey arrived in 1791) and 1862, the population declined from 2000 to only 101 full-blooded individuals. The last full-blooded Moriori died in 1933. My point in saying all this? The confiscation of the Chathams and the slaughter and enslavement of its inhabitants was acceptable according to Maori culture at the time. They saw nothing wrong with it. To my knowledge the Iwi responsible for the Chatham invasion (Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama) have never apologised for their actions, let alone paid out compensation. Should such acts have been carried out by whitey on Maori, you can be certain there'd be numerous claims for substantial compensation.

Loss of traditional land and customs is often blamed for Maori's over-representation in just about every negative statistic going: child abuse, alcoholism and drug-abuse, prison population, life-expectancy, illiteracy, unemployment, etc. Well, contrary to what many Maori activists would like to claim, customs and language cannot be passed down through genetics. The vast majority of today's activists did not have land taken from them. The vast majority of such acts did not occur in the lifetimes of today's activists' parents. The grievances they have are therefore not raised from the loss of something they (as individuals, not as a culture) once possessed, but more a passed-down sense of aggrievement. The failure of modern Maori to adjust, as thousands of cultures and peoples have done all over the world, is blamed on this one thing. If we'd had our lands we could of, should of would of been OK.

The difference between Maori and the thousands of other peoples in a similar position round the world is that there was that Treaty. Ignoring the small fact that not all Iwi chiefs signed it (though that's never stopped those Iwi making claims under it, funnily enough). Maori were happy to conquer other Iwi, confiscate their land and slaughter and enslave their people. That was the Maori way and in keeping with their culture and customs. The rules that Maori today want to retrospectively apply to whitey do not apply to them themselves. One only has to look at the spat between various Iwi over who 'owned' the lands around the Hauraki gulf to see an example of this inconsistency. Now there are great wads of cash up for grabs, there are different Iwi fighting over who should get it. The greatest hypocrisy comes from the Iwi that came out on top way back when, with their modern descendants claiming the land was theirs by right of conquest. Well, in that case, why can't the right of conquest be applied to whitey coming and taking it over only a few years later?

The whole Treaty issue has grown into a gravy train machine designed to extract as much money and land out of the government. It's existence is divisive to the nation as a whole. The best outcome would be for the whole thing to be abolished and the Treaty of Waitangi written out of legislation and relegated to a status it should have occupied years back; an interesting relic.

Thanks Sanx, just how i feel and well put. The only add on i have is to point out that when the Government hand out money its my taxs dollars their giving away. I dont earn money and pay taxs so the bastards can waste it on anybody of any color. Sigh (ventted but still depressed)

[avgas]

hy·per·bo·le
1. When your at the bottom and the sides are too steep to climb.
2. When your at the top and sides are too steep to even consider stepping down.

[Forest]

It's interesting eh, I didn't know most of that stuff before we learned about it in History.

My history teacher asked us to think about it this way: What if the Chinese came to NZ now, we let them set up their own government, and then they suddenly started passing laws taking away our land, stopped us from teaching our kids English, and enforced those laws with troops armed with weapons way more advanced than anything we had.


Your history teacher is full of shit. Academic moral relativism is pathetic and unhelpful.

If I was living in the stone age and the Chinese bought me medicine, education, modern agriculture, industrialisation ... then I would welcome them

[Coyote]

If one first excludes Winston Peters.
If you ruled out a party by their leader, who would you be left with?

[scracha]

Your history teacher is full of shit. Academic moral relativism is pathetic and unhelpful.

If I was living in the stone age and the Chinese bought me medicine, education, modern agriculture, industrialisation ... then I would welcome them

Yep, the treaty was a means to dominate the Maori in the same way that the Act of the Union was a means to dominate us Scots. Both races would have suffered far worse fates had they not signed. Shafted, yep. Slaughtered, no. Can you guess how the Maori would have fared had certain other countries "invaded" instead?

I can't run about the hills anymore in with my claymore but I'm not gonna claim compensation from the Romans, the Vikings nor the English. The countries that invaded us brought many useful inventions, technologies and social policies. Just how far back should compensation go? Hell, some would say us jocks are still getting shafted (http://www.scottishsundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/39621/Chancellor-s-40million-energy-raid). Time to move on.

[McJim]

Hell, some would say us jocks are still getting shafted (http://www.scottishsundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/39621/Chancellor-s-40million-energy-raid). Time to bend over.

Assume the position Mr Scracha :rofl: It's all for nothing if ya ain't got yer Freedom cobber as Mel says.

[Steam]

If I was living in the stone age and the Chinese bought me medicine, education, modern agriculture, industrialisation ... then I would welcome them

In 1840 Maori numbered about 200,000.
In 1896 Maori numbered 42,113.

Thanks Europeans! Welcome!

[sAsLEX]

In 1840 Maori numbered about 200,000.
In 1896 Maori numbered 42,113.

Thanks Europeans! Welcome!

And Moa one of their food sources numbered Zero......

[Ocean1]

In 1840 Maori numbered about 200,000.
In 1896 Maori numbered 42,113.

Thanks Europeans! Welcome!

Do you know why?

[Steam]

Do you know why?

I seem to remember 95% of those deaths were because of new and interesting European diseases they had no immunity to, the rest due to war.

[Ocean1]

I seem to remember 95% of those deaths were because of new and interesting European diseases they had no immunity to, the rest due to war.

Doubt it was 95% but there's no way to know accurately. However some of them also got guns, and we're talking about a feudal warrior society here...

Some other societies didn't survive contact with "foreigners” at all, and I’m not just talking about the more recent European expansion, it’s an old, old story. It’s also not my fault, nor anything anyone living should feel aggrieved about.

[Sanx]

In 1840 Maori numbered about 200,000.
In 1896 Maori numbered 42,113.

Thanks Europeans! Welcome!

In 1835, Moriori living on the Chatham Islands numbered 2000 or so. In 1865, Moriori numbered 101.

Thanks Maori! Welcome!

The point of this rather obvious comment is to point out that the Maori were happily doing to other races what they claimed the Europeans were doing to them. At the same time, as with everything they do now, they justified it at the time by saying the mass slaughter and enslavement was in keeping with their traditions and culture.

And unlike the decline of Maori, which you correctly assign to a combination of internecine feuding and disease, the decimation of the Moriori was almost entirely caused by their slaughter.

[Swoop]

And Moa one of their food sources numbered Zero......
It was then a very long wait for KFC to open in NZ.

[scumdog]

We'd be pissed. We'd still be pissed 150 years later. Hell, it's not even 150 years later, it was just in 1953 that the Maori Affairs Act was passed saying if Maori land was not occupied or being used then it was declared 'waste land' and taken by the government.

A lot of people learn about the injustices and go "Oh hell that's really bad. But it was all so long ago, let's just forgive and forget eh. It wasn't me, it was my great-grandfather."

That's really easy to say when you're on the top of the pile, and less easy to say if every day you see the grandchildren of thieves living on the land their grandfathers stole from you.

Steam, my people got shat on big-time by the English a few hundred years ago too in Scotland.

But you don't hear me bleating on and on and on about how the poms raped the cattle and stole the women etc etc.

And you don't hear me saying to th British Government "Pay me, pay me pay me" for hundreds of years....or worse still, accepting an agreed full and final payment and then letting the next generation leech off another few million from the country in payment.

Time to get over it.

You get invaded and lose a war? - bad luck, life sucks at the time but you get over it. (or should)

[Steam]

True, true. I'm a Scot too, hence my name Jamie McEwan.

But the Maori didn't get invaded or conquered, they got a signed and sealed agreement in return for letting Europeans in, that guaranteed the "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties."

That agreement has been broken again and again, hence the Waitangi Tribunal.

Lots of people think the treaty should be scrapped, but it's the basis of relations between Maori and Europeans. If it gets scrapped then we really did conquer them, we just lied to get them to sign a fake treaty.

[sAsLEX]

True, true. I'm a Scot too, hence my name Jamie McEwan.

But the Maori didn't get invaded or conquered, they got a signed and sealed agreement in return for letting Europeans in, that guaranteed the "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties."

That agreement has been broken again and again, hence the Waitangi Tribunal.

Lots of people think the treaty should be scrapped, but it's the basis of relations between Maori and Europeans. If it gets scrapped then we really did conquer them, we just lied to get them to sign a fake treaty.

And?

Then we would of treated them equitably compared to all other colonised nations.

We are unique with our treaty and look how well its working!

[scumdog]

True, true. I'm a Scot too, hence my name Jamie McEwan.

But the Maori didn't get invaded or conquered, they got a signed and sealed agreement in return for letting Europeans in, that guaranteed the "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties."

That agreement has been broken again and again, hence the Waitangi Tribunal.

Lots of people think the treaty should be scrapped, but it's the basis of relations between Maori and Europeans. If it gets scrapped then we really did conquer them, we just lied to get them to sign a fake treaty.

The thing is: they never HAD to sign the Treaty - the 'invaders' could have just literally knocked them into extinction but they offered the Treaty.

Maybe it has not gone the way it should have, maybe the Maori HAVE been shafyted a bit.

But time to get over it, move on, it's 21st century.

I for one don't want to have to pay for crap that happened before I was born - and that I had nothing to do with.

[Steam]

True, I do concede the Europeans have do have a fair point.

It's going to be interesting how things work out over the next few decades.

[McJim]

But you don't hear me bleating on and on and on about how the poms raped the cattle and stole the women etc etc.


Stop bleating on and on about the Poms dude. It's not a good look. So they won Culloden and we lost. Get over it....Oh and Sanx....gie us ma oil back ya sassenach ye! :rofl:

As an observer to the whole Waitangi remuneration thing it does seem to be heavily unpopular amongst many - including many Maori who feel that they won't benefit personally but will bear the brunt of non Maori bad feeling.

It's odd though - Maori were treated so much better by the Europeans than the Native Americans, the Central Americans, The Incas, The Native Australians the West Coast Africans.......in fact the list can go on and on and on. Seems grudges ARE hereditary...this explains the shit state of the world we live in eh? too many grudges. not enough Compo to go around.

[Hitcher]

I'm a Scot too, hence my name Jamie McEwan.

That's Hungarian if ever I heard one.

[McJim]

That's Hungarian if ever I heard one.
Dinnae be daft laddie - McJim is Hungarian. McEwan is from Outer Mongolia :rofl:

[Dave Lobster]

How many maoris would be alive today if the Dutch had have stuck around here, rather than the british?

[Sanx]

How many maoris would be alive today if the Dutch had have stuck around here, rather than the british?

Or the French, for that matter.

I think it's quite telling that the Brits chose to offer a Treaty instead of simply rocking up and kicking the living shit out of the natives. 1840. Napolean had been well and truly beaten and had died in exile. The little spat in America was a generation ago. With the exception of a couple of little spats in Egypt and the truly disasterous occupation of Afghanistan (all together now: "history, never repeats ..."), the Brits were relatively comfortable militarily. The British navy was at the height of its powers, and the army was still basking in the reflected glory of having kicked the crap out of everyone that had made the mistake of opposing them.

Despite this, Britain didn't adopt it's usual native-handling strategy and chose to offer a treaty. I really don't know why this happened, but I can only think of two possibilities: a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories?

[McJim]

Despite this, Britain didn't adopt it's usual native-handling strategy and chose to offer a treaty. I really don't know why this happened, but I can only think of two possibilities: a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories?

Well the English Military had cut their teeth fighting a warrior race with a liking for violence and with about 4,000 years of killing each other. I think the British quite simply sent settlers and didn't back them up with the real army or the real navy. Settlers had to do their best without the muscle and made the mistake of trading firearms with the natives which unfortunately handed them the advantage (traditionally the Brits kept the guns for themselves and anhiliation ensued)

But that's just my guess.

[sAsLEX]

Or the French, for that matter.

I think it's quite telling that the Brits chose to offer a Treaty instead of simply rocking up and kicking the living shit out of the natives. 1840. Napolean had been well and truly beaten and had died in exile. The little spat in America was a generation ago. With the exception of a couple of little spats in Egypt and the truly disasterous occupation of Afghanistan (all together now: "history, never repeats ..."), the Brits were relatively comfortable militarily. The British navy was at the height of its powers, and the army was still basking in the reflected glory of having kicked the crap out of everyone that had made the mistake of opposing them.

Despite this, Britain didn't adopt it's usual native-handling strategy and chose to offer a treaty. I really don't know why this happened, but I can only think of two possibilities: a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories?


To be honest the guerilla warfare that the New Zealand terrain so suited would of seen a long long period of war before the Maori were defeated.

Hell they invented, and did extrodinarily well at, trench warfare!

[98tls]

Or the French, for that matter.

I think it's quite telling that the Brits chose to offer a Treaty instead of simply rocking up and kicking the living shit out of the natives. 1840. Napolean had been well and truly beaten and had died in exile. The little spat in America was a generation ago. With the exception of a couple of little spats in Egypt and the truly disasterous occupation of Afghanistan (all together now: "history, never repeats ..."), the Brits were relatively comfortable militarily. The British navy was at the height of its powers, and the army was still basking in the reflected glory of having kicked the crap out of everyone that had made the mistake of opposing them.

Despite this, Britain didn't adopt it's usual native-handling strategy and chose to offer a treaty. I really don't know why this happened, but I can only think of two possibilities: a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories? There Navy wasnt really of much use to them here,man for man they got there arses kicked on more than one occasion.

[Grahameeboy]

so does this mean the British Government is about to make reparations for all the North Sea oil and gas profits from over the past 3 decades too?

True although I am sure Scotland saw the flip side too...at least they have some control now with their own parliament and I am pretty sure that since then the profits from oil did not always get past the wall.

But love the Scots and the Highlands having bagged many a Munro...only other Country I would live in...

[sAsLEX]

their own parliament

And how they don't waste millions and millions on a stupid building.......

[Grahameeboy]

Steam, my people got shat on big-time by the English a few hundred years ago too in Scotland.

But you don't hear me bleating on and on and on about how the poms raped the cattle and stole the women etc etc.

And you don't hear me saying to th British Government "Pay me, pay me pay me" for hundreds of years....or worse still, accepting an agreed full and final payment and then letting the next generation leech off another few million from the country in payment.

Time to get over it.

You get invaded and lose a war? - bad luck, life sucks at the time but you get over it. (or should)


Agreed Sir....Native American Indians etc etc...

What I don't get is that the Treaty was with the Crown not the NZ Govt...

[sAsLEX]

Agreed Sir....Native American Indians etc etc...

What I don't get is that the Treaty was with the Crown not the NZ Govt...

Hmmm I have a look at my parchment and its not the Govt I am serving but the Queen.

[Grahameeboy]

Hmmm I have a look at my parchment and its not the Govt I am serving but the Queen.

Does she pay better then?

[Steam]

What I don't get is that the Treaty was with the Crown not the NZ Govt...

Whenever someone says "Crown", just put in "NZ Goverment".
NZ Government owned land in NZ is called Crown Land, the Govt's lawyers are the Crown Law Office, there are Crown Research Institutes, etc etc. All owned by the government of NZ.
It's a holdover from the days when the royals actually did something useful.
When we stopped legally being a colony we accepted all the responsibilities of the Crown.
If someone says "They signed the treaty with the Crown in England, not us..." they just don't understand what Crown means.
Besides, the Treaty was reaffirmed, passed into law again, as being one of the foundations of NZ law in 1975.

[98tls]

Steam, my people got shat on big-time by the English a few hundred years ago too in Scotland.

But you don't hear me bleating on and on and on about how the poms raped the cattle and stole the women etc etc.

And you don't hear me saying to th British Government "Pay me, pay me pay me" for hundreds of years....or worse still, accepting an agreed full and final payment and then letting the next generation leech off another few million from the country in payment.

Time to get over it.

You get invaded and lose a war? - bad luck, life sucks at the time but you get over it. (or should) Damn,my familys German,does this mean the jews owe me nothing,all that anger for nothing?:yawn:

[Ocean1]

Anyone else got any theories?

Trade.

NZ had little to offer, certainly not enough to interest any of the great European trading houses. Not enough, therefore, to justify a full occupational strategy from half a planet away.

[sAsLEX]

Trade.

NZ had little to offer, certainly not enough to interest any of the great European trading houses. Not enough, therefore, to justify a full occupational strategy from half a planet away.

And now they eat our butter and beef!

How short sighted of them.

[McJim]

And now they eat our butter and beef!

How short sighted of them.

Yeah but it also opened huge markets for the Americans to sell their Fried Chicken and their Burgers and Coke! :rofl:

[sAsLEX]

Yeah but it also opened huge markets for the Americans to sell their Fried Chicken and their Burgers and Coke! :rofl:

The British are to blame for beer though..... not sure who invented meths?

[EJT]

Or the French, for that matter.

I think it's quite telling that the Brits chose to offer a Treaty instead of simply rocking up and kicking the living shit out of the natives.

a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories?

I'm struggling to recall when the British ever rocked on up to a new land with its military might and kicked the living shit out the the natives. Is that like an 18th century version of D-Day? Usually it went something along the lines of discovery/missionaries/settlers/empty promises/disease/land grab/the odd battle/confiscation/laws...

Maybe they signed a treaty because they finally realised that the savages weren't the natives.

[Steam]

The British are to blame for beer though..... not sure who invented meths?

I understand the ancient Egyptians invented beer in about 3500 BC. Quite similar recipe to what we have now. Someone decipered some heiroglypics or something just a few years ago and made some to the original 5500 year old recipe.

[McJim]

I understand the ancient Egyptians invented beer in about 3500 BC. Quite similar recipe to what we have now. Someone decipered some heiroglypics or something just a few years ago and made some to the original 5500 year old recipe.

Priceless! Gie us a pint o' Tuhtenkhamen and a packet of Pork scratchings :rofl:

[98tls]

Priceless! Gie us a pint o' Tuhtenkhamen and a packet of Pork scratchings :rofl: You sir get nothing but cordial,for that matter cordial in a smallish but nimble glass,well as nimble as a glass can be.:blank:

[Sanx]

Maybe they signed a treaty because they finally realised that the savages weren't the natives.

Yes, very deep.


I'm struggling to recall when the British ever rocked on up to a new land with its military might and kicked the living shit out the the natives. Is that like an 18th century version of D-Day? Usually it went something along the lines of discovery/missionaries/settlers/empty promises/disease/land grab/the odd battle/confiscation/laws...

Hmm, India, Egypt, the Sudan, Kenya, Hong Kong and parts of South Africa all spring to mind. The Indian Raj, weakened during the preceeding 60 years or so, was finally defeated during several monumental battles during the late 1850s and 1860s following the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion. Egypt was siezed to ensure control of the anglo-french funded Suez Canal, and Sudan was invaded to ensure control over the whole Nile valley. Hong Kong was siezed during the 1st Opium War. South Africa was invaded and occupied by the military to ensure the Boer didn't cause too many problems to the increasing number of Britons settling there. Sure, there were settlers and traders there first (the British empire was primarily a trading empire after all), but when Britain decided it wanted the place for itself, it generally went in and took it.

[Forest]

Or the French, for that matter.

I think it's quite telling that the Brits chose to offer a Treaty instead of simply rocking up and kicking the living shit out of the natives. 1840. Napolean had been well and truly beaten and had died in exile. The little spat in America was a generation ago. With the exception of a couple of little spats in Egypt and the truly disasterous occupation of Afghanistan (all together now: "history, never repeats ..."), the Brits were relatively comfortable militarily. The British navy was at the height of its powers, and the army was still basking in the reflected glory of having kicked the crap out of everyone that had made the mistake of opposing them.

Despite this, Britain didn't adopt it's usual native-handling strategy and chose to offer a treaty. I really don't know why this happened, but I can only think of two possibilities: a) they genuinely did think twice about taking on a warrior race with a liking for violence honed by years of killing each other, or b) New Zealand was a hell of a long way away and trying to conduct overseas missions when re-inforcements were six months away seemed a bad idea.

Anyone else got any theories?

The reasons why the British signed the Treaty is basically spelled out in the preamble section:


Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty[sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceided[sic] to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

Queen Victoria personally requested that a treaty be prepared and signed. This request followed her displeasure at the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginals in Tasmania in the early 19th century (a subject which was raised in British newspapers of the time).

[Forest]

Agreed Sir....Native American Indians etc etc...

What I don't get is that the Treaty was with the Crown not the NZ Govt...

Think about it.

The New Zealand Government didn't come into existence until after the Treaty had been signed. You cannot sign a Treaty with something that doesn't exist, hence the Treaty was signed by a representative of the Crown.

[Sanx]

The reasons why the British signed the Treaty is basically spelled out in the preamble section:

Queen Victoria personally requested that a treaty be prepared and signed. This request followed her displeasure at the wholesale slaughter of Aboriginals in Tasmania in the early 19th century (a subject which was raised in British newspapers of the time).

The preamble says nothing about stopping the French getting a foothold, which was another very important reason at the time...

[avgas]

In 1840 Maori numbered about 200,000.
In 1896 Maori numbered 42,113.

Show me the bones to prove it!

[avgas]

Hell they invented, and did extrodinarily well at, trench warfare!
Er no.....Maori history dictates that they were good at Honest in your face war.
Hense Pa-s on top of big vacant hills.
Guerrilla came about because they had to be less obvious for bullets.
And the almost 80% of those battles were tribe against tribe!

[MisterD]

but when Britain decided it wanted the place for itself, it generally went in and took it.

That generally only happened if it was the only option to maintain or protect trade - the whole Indian campaign only came about after Napoleon started stirring things up to weaken British trade, which was the same reason we ended up in Spain and Portugal. The difference between those two conflicts was that in example a) the French spent money to coerce the natives into opposition and in example b) they tried to go the invasion route themselves.

[ManDownUnder]

And Moa one of their food sources numbered Zero......

OK I have a counter grievance I want to claim... But for the actions of some I would have been able to enjoy Moa wandering the hillsides,a dn would have opened a fantadtic fast food, meat processing and export business which would have absolutely skyrocketed NZ exports and my personal profits thanks to the recent signing of the open trade agreement with our dear friends in China.

But alas that is no more.... I'm out of pocket to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Who do I ring?

[Steam]

OK I have a counter grievance I want to claim... But for the actions of some I would have been able to enjoy Moa wandering the hillsides,a dn would have opened a fantadtic fast food, meat processing and export business which would have absolutely skyrocketed NZ exports and my personal profits thanks to the recent signing of the open trade agreement with our dear friends in China.

But alas that is no more.... I'm out of pocket to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

Who do I ring?

Sorry sucka, you didn't sign a contract or treaty guaranteeing you the Moa.

[ManDownUnder]

Sorry sucka, you didn't sign a contract or treaty guaranteeing you the Moa.

Exactly my point - I didn't sign anything! The british crown did. Bill them!

[Steam]

Exactly my point - I didn't sign anything! The british crown did. Bill them!

Unfortunately when NZ became a proper nation and not just a colony, the NZ Government accepted all the responsibilities and agreements that the British crown previously made regarding NZ.

[avgas]

Unfortunately when NZ became a proper nation and not just a colony, the NZ Government accepted all the responsibilities and agreements that the British crown previously made regarding NZ.
Very true, but it also removed segregation in the community as to race.
There is no such thing as Maori only New Zealand/Aoteroa born.
When you are born here you do not get a Maori birth certificate, there is no Maori law, there is no Maori currency or religion.
All that is left is a few culture groups, and a bank account.
Most likely an overseas one.

[fire eyes]

:calm: lots of interesting information coming out in this thread, obviously everyone holds very strong opinions & certainly have every right to express feelings.

My own little brief from the 'little people'

I watched my own family exhaust thier way through the Ngati Ruanui Treaty Settlement, 10 years (next phase of sub-tribe negotiations) of constant research, meetings, court proccedings, and this was to battle Ngati Ruanui itself to halt the negotiation proceedings, because to them (my family) it was unjust, thier mandate came from a Meeting of Chiefs at Manawapou where it was agreed 'no land sold' so to my family the Settlement was a cop out.

I had an opportunity to attend a representitives meeting for Negotiations with my grandfather who rose to object to the Settlement based on the sub-tribe mandate. Its a very humbling experience to watch an educated man with a doctorate and who has taught & lectured all over the world, who was raised by his knowledgeable elders, succomb to grief at the hand of his own people, who had no interest but to privvy the crown in order to line thier own pockets. Yes I am talking about the Maori who had signed for the settlement on behalf of all Ngati Ruanui descendants.

After the settlement? There are some services available now that wernt there before but to my knowledge, many families havent moved any further ahead then where they were before the Settlement. My family itself work hard, continuously educate & upskill themselves as I do. My parents always worked, still do. I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I dont rely or depend on anyone to take care of me in any aspect. I am very proud to be Maori (& Irish) & acknowledge this in so many ways as I see another
side to my Maori culture many do not, however, dependency on the Crown is killing us & contributing to broken spirits. There is so much that is not working & segregation is one of them and it is showing up in child abuse, alcoholism, drug addictions violence.

Solutions? There is a human aspect that has been lost in all of this, a common appreciation for life & it's wonderment. We have forgotten the fundamentals of our existence and are locked into needless suffering because of the mentality that 'we are owed'. Yes events happened that changed the course of our cultural structures, society & environments and I acknowledge this as well. In my eyes, when we take respnsibility for ourselves and our participation in the course of our own lives only then will any suffering ease and we can move forward. This doesnt just apply to 'Maori' either.

My two little cents worth :hug:

[sAsLEX]

Er no.....Maori history dictates that they were good at Honest in your face war.
Hense Pa-s on top of big vacant hills.
Guerrilla came about because they had to be less obvious for bullets.
And the almost 80% of those battles were tribe against tribe!

Ummm were was the bit I was wrong?


Sorry sucka, you didn't sign a contract or treaty guaranteeing you the Moa.

And yet even after their history of fantastic resource management they get special rights for such in our law


There is greater awareness amongst iwi and hapū of the opportunities and processes for their involvement and for the practical expression of kaitiakitanga in sustainable resource management.




there is no Maori law, there is no Maori currency or religion.


Ummm then why do all the Politicians visit their annual religious gathering?

And why are Maori the only section of society that have special representation in the Govt.

[Hinny]

:calm: l

My two little cents worth :hug:

Well that was certainly value for money.

[Hinny]

I expressed my belief, to a mate, that Maori and Irish people were fairly similar. ( thinking their sociability and love of song.)

He rejoined quick as a flash,

"What do you mean they both had their land stolen off them by the British and they will fight anybody for no reason."

[fire eyes]

and they will also take in a stranger and feed them and give a place to lay thier head should they need shelter .. :hug:

[Hinny]

At the risk of being bombarded with the rage of ignorant rednecks who don't know their history, I remind you of these interesting facts, and invite you to consider whether the injustices may not be worth a few billion dollars.



What injustices do you wish us to consider?
The listed 'facts' can probably not be considered injustices without the inflammatory biased accompanying commentary.

One injustice that does not get mentioned often is the reversal of legitimate land sales with land going back to the Maori and without compensation or reparation of the sale consideration to the purchasers.
Oral history puts this at the time of the signing of the treaty. Set aside all land sales for a period leading to the signing.

It has, I would offer, become impossible to 'Know' our history as it appears it is being continually rewritten. The real crock I find is the teaching of this new history in schools.

[Steam]

What injustices do you wish us to consider?
The listed 'facts' can probably not be considered injustices without the inflammatory biased accompanying commentary.
That doesn't dignify a response.

Oh, wait, no, it does;
You are either astoundingly ignorant or your bigotry has blinded you.

[Steam]

Yeah, I've decided it must be the latter.

[Ocean1]

That doesn't dignify a response.

Oh, wait, no, it does;
You are either astoundingly ignorant or your bigotry has blinded you.

Did you ever read further than your school books dude?

He's right. History used to be written by war's winners, that's no longer true.

[Steam]

Aarg!


10 char.

[Sanx]

That doesn't dignify a response.

Oh, wait, no, it does;
You are either astoundingly ignorant or your bigotry has blinded you.

Resorting to insults or accusations of bigotry is usually a pretty good indication of an argument that can no longer be sustained. You might have a different opinion to the majority of those expressed in this thread, but this doesn't make yours any more, or any less valid.

As for the fact that histories are constantly being rewritten: this is the case. My mother, who was at school in Christchurch during the late 40s and early 50s, was taught that the Maori arrived to find NZ populated by the Moriori; a pacifist race who were ill-equipped to repel the invaders and consequently got wiped out. Although that was the story on the Chatham Islands, it was not the case for NZ as a whole.

If 'facts' change this fast, then who knows what's going to be taught in another 50 years time. Though, with the way NZ is going, I'm sure all school-children will be taught that the Maori were a noble advanced race who were the victims of a holocaust-like massacre at the hands of the invading Europeans. Only the brave Chinese and Pacific Islanders stood with their dark brethren in their fight against tyranny. [insert more blatantly false PC twaddle]

[Hinny]

For a quick reality check on the recording of history one only needs to look at the Iraq conflict.
How many versions have we had for the invasion of Iraq?
As in all wars the first casualty is the truth.

[avgas]

a)Ummm were was the bit I was wrong?

b)And yet even after their history of fantastic resource management they get special rights for such in our law

c)Ummm then why do all the Politicians visit their annual religious gathering?

d)And why are Maori the only section of society that have special representation in the Govt.
a) Guerrilla warfare? - what they were specialised in was running onto a field and storming a big base that was out in the open. Last time i checked Guerrilla warfare required some hiding, not full blown charge, not over a short period of time. Correct me however, as i understood Guerrilla mean to to undertake a slow long war with a parasitic relationship between you, then enemy and the surroundings. Where the sit and wait for prime opportunities come into play.

b) Resource management doesn't come into play - it is the resource that is the reason why the war exists.

c) Count them on your hand - compare them to our annual holiday (2 hands). Find me a Maori church which does not support God.

d) because they had to to setup the damn thing. its in that blasted treaty doc you keep nattering about.

[Hinny]

Yes events happened that changed the course of our cultural structures, society & environments and I acknowledge this as well. In my eyes, when we take respnsibility for ourselves and our participation in the course of our own lives only then will any suffering ease and we can move forward. This doesnt just apply to 'Maori' either. :hug:

Errare humanum est, ignosere divinum. (To err is human, to forgive is divine.)
Or "shit happens, try to move on" in more colloquial terms...

[Steam]

Errare humanum est

Sorry for being rude to you Hinny. I was a bit drunk.

[Hinny]

and they will also take in a stranger and feed them and give a place to lay thier head should they need shelter .. :hug:

If they are like my mates they feed you dog food when you are hungry and set fire to your hair ,,,,, just because you are drunk! True story.

[Hinny]

Sorry for being rude to you Hinny. I was a bit drunk.

I'll be divine.....I forgive you.