NOT the Scottish Thread

[bogan]

So because settlers did bad things to natives (who may themselves have done bad things to natives who were already here) anyone who is part native should be given preferential treatment?

I write that to try and understand what the point of your story was, there was no summary or discenable point to your ramblings.

[Banditbandit]

Speak for yourself . I was born here. I'm not European, I'm not Maori, I'm not Pakeha.
I am a New Zealander.

Rant end

This is a serious issue. I do not disagree. The problem is that we see that what many people mean by "New ZEalander" is white ... Originally it meant "Māori" .. and in most of the early writings Māori are called "New Zealanders" ...

Following the assimilation policies of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries Māori were meant to become like white people ... we resisted and have resisted the label "New Zealander" ...

If it was an inclusive label, as our concept of Us is inclusive ... then I would be happy to accept that label ...

[Banditbandit]

Hang about, I need coffee and cigarettes ...

[marty]

Nice story.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of your points, as they are obviously your own truths.

I'm not really sure why Taranaki maori invaded The Chathams - how did they even know they were there, and it's a long way from Waitara across the North Island and the ocean to the Chatams - there must have been some serious whanau issues going on for them to go that far for what?

I'm not really sure exactly what it is that modern maori want from the current processes being undertaken. Do they even know?

[Banditbandit]

So because settlers did bad things to natives (who may themselves have done bad things to natives who were already here) anyone who is part native should be given preferential treatment?

I write that to try and understand what the point of your story was, there was no summary or discenable point to your ramblings.

Yes, it is a bit of a ramble. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that we see the world in different ways, we see our history and the point we are at today in different ways. It's not written in my usual academic way - but more a setting out of a position from which I know wish to discuss many of the points and issues people are raising in other (and less appropriate) forums.

Where did I say that I support "preferential treatment"? Where, in what I have written does it argue that, or suggest that?

I have difficulty responding to your question because the concept of "preferential treatment" is a Pākehā idea, not a Māori idea. We have different reasons for asking to be treated in certain ways. But that is no different from people on sickness benefits who get money from the govermment that the rest of us don't. Do they get "preferential treatment? In some ways, yes they do.

Give me some specific examples ... and I might be able to respond.

[Banditbandit]

Nice story.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with any of your points, as they are obviously your own truths.

I'm not really sure why Taranaki maori invaded The Chathams - how did they even know they were there, and it's a long way from Waitara across the North Island and the ocean to the Chatams - there must have been some serious whanau issues going on for them to go that far for what?

I'm not really sure exactly what it is that modern maori want from the current processes being undertaken. Do they even know?

I seriously doubt that Modern Māori couild agree on a collective "what we want from the current processes" ...

And what did Taranaki Māori invade the Chathams? Probably because they wanted the resources - the food and land ... just like all human beings invade other people's countries.

[Banditbandit]

So because settlers did bad things to natives (who may themselves have done bad things to natives who were already here) anyone who is part native should be given preferential treatment?

OK .. let's start with "here first ..." Māori were here first - in Whanganui's case it was Paerangi ... in small and isolated populations to start - growing as more waka arrived ... the Moriori were never here.

Modern social anthropology has shown that the Chathams was probably settled from Eastern Polynesia at the same time as the mainland islands. The culture on the Chathams lost contact with the rest and developed in different ways - becoming Moriori ... while the culture on the mainland islands developed into Māori culture ... our own stories support that position.

More recent theories suggest settlement from the mainland islands .. and then the development of a separate culture.

The myth that Moriori were here first and were conquered and eaten by Māori is just that - a Pākehā myth - used to "justify" Pākehā invasion and conquest - "You did it to the Moriori so you can't complain when we do it to you ..."

[admenk]

First of all, thanks to Banditbandit for your posts which are not only informative but also polite and devoid of some of the abuse we see on KB.

I'm a real foreigner, having only arrived here 3 years ago, so although I'm a resident, I'll probably never call myself a New Zealander - although I love it here and think it's a great place to live. Because I'm an outsider, I don't have any vested interests or personal ties or grudges to the past in NZ.

We all have our own histories, and our own different versions of the same history. I expect that even the most "anti-Maori" commentators would agree that some pretty bad things were done to Maori over the years(as well as some good). Of course, the questions now are, are those injustices relevant today, and if so, what should be done about them?

I don't claim to have any answers, but at least some of the people involved are talking about it and trying to find a solution. (trouble is, the 4 million people in NZ will probably have 4 million slightly different answers!) Whilst we may not always agree, surely it's better to talk about our problems, as someone said, "jaw jaw is better than war war"

What I do know, is that it won't happen overnight, I'm from the UK, and whilst we don't hate each other anymore, there's still differences between English, Scots and Welsh over stuff that happened, in some cases hundreds of years ago. (The Irish "troubles" of course were a lot more recent)

I've recently completed a Te Reo Maori course, and it was one the best courses I've been on for years. I was shown nothing but kindness and understanding from all involved, the same, I might add, as my dealings with "non Maori" Unfortunatly, often the people you hear on TV are the radicalised, often racist idiots from both sides of the debate - they're the ones who unfortunatly get the airtime.

I apologise for my ramblings, what I'm trying to say as an outsider looking in, is that yes, there will always be differences in opinions, but let's all try to sort through them in the right way. I'd rather listen to hours of waffle on the topic (yes, a bit like my post) than see anyone get killed over it.

That's my two pennies worth - It will be an interesting debate !

[MSTRS:Me]

Whew! that was a bit of a read.
What I take from it is that Maori had their culture and customs. Europeans had no comprehension of the meanings of those customs. The reverse is also true. Perhaps not a lot has changed, even today.
I doubt that anyone not raised in the 'Maori way' would ever understand the Haka and the challenge on entering a marae as anything other than a direct, real and present threat to one's physical well-being. It is the same as the horn blowing you mentioned. Without knowing the meaning, one would tend to respond in kind, and therefore 'you' would view them as being the aggressor. I've lived here all my life, I've been on a marae a couple of times, but I've never had a moko'd spear-waving 'savage' come bounding towards me making threatening gestures - should that ever happen, chances are I'd be wanting to defend myself by dealing to him before he dealt to me. Quelle insult, to Maori - simple preservation to me. And I'm not so different to most non-Maori.
Good luck going into the future side by side as 'equals' when that oh-so-basic cultural divide is so prevalent.

[MSTRS:Me]

And why did Taranaki Māori invade the Chathams? Probably because they wanted the resources - the food and land ... just like all human beings invade other people's countries.

Interesting. As I understand it, the 'food' was the people. And the invaders didn't stay. Was it all a pre-emptive strike to avoid a Chatham-led attack on Taranaki?

[bogan]

Yes, it is a bit of a ramble. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that we see the world in different ways, we see our history and the point we are at today in different ways. It's not written in my usual academic way - but more a setting out of a position from which I know wish to discuss many of the points and issues people are raising in other (and less appropriate) forums.

Where did I say that I support "preferential treatment"? Where, in what I have written does it argue that, or suggest that?

I have difficulty responding to your question because the concept of "preferential treatment" is a Pākehā idea, not a Māori idea. We have different reasons for asking to be treated in certain ways. But that is no different from people on sickness benefits who get money from the govermment that the rest of us don't. Do they get "preferential treatment? In some ways, yes they do.

Give me some specific examples ... and I might be able to respond.

I just assumed that the whole point of this was to show how the evil settlers stole from the maori and now we all owe you guys heaps, ie preferential treatment. But if all you wanted to do was prove you see things differently, then goal acheived!

Preferential treatment to me (in this case) is giving someone of equal ability/potential an advantage based purely on race. So benefits not so much, unless they are lying pricks with nothing wrong with em!

OK .. let's start with "here first ..." Māori were here first - in Whanganui's case it was Paerangi ... in small and isolated populations to start - growing as more waka arrived ... the Moriori were never here.

and what about the moa? They were surely here, then some bastards ate them all.

[Bald Eagle]

If we all continue to live in our respective pasts and harbour greivances, it's going to be a long road ahead..

... but at least we've got the treaty to stop us actually killing each other anymore.

[Banditbandit]

Interesting. As I understand it, the 'food' was the people. And the invaders didn't stay. Was it all a pre-emptive strike to avoid a Chatham-led attack on Taranaki?

Yeah - they ate them. There's no getting past that history. But they did stay. Ngati Mutungu are still on the Chathams ... the other part is that the food they produiced on the land and from the sea was sent back to Parihaka .. which would not have survived without support from the Chathams .. Ironic that a non-violent rersistnace movement was supported by the violent invasion of the CHathams ..

No group of people (race/society/club) has a moral high ground. Our historieas are all bloody and nasty ...

Unfortunately, we are the descendents of the survivors - the violent agressors - the peaceful, non-aggressive people got wiped out ... (Not an original idea - straight from Heinlein)

[Banditbandit]

and what about the moa? They were surely here, then some bastards ate them all.

There were something like 56 species of birds that my ancestors hunted to extinction before Europeans arrived ... there's no getting away from such realities .. but they had no idea what was happening - no-one counted the bird populations ... if they had known they would not have killed them off ... (at least I hope they wouldn't have)

No one is perfect - we are all human beings ...

[mashman]

Hang about, I need coffee and cigarettes ...

I understand.