Commodity ownership?

[Banditbandit]

So if the hydrodams were put under iwi control, would they tear them down to spit in the face of the euro-centric ideals, or would they keep em to sell the electricity generated?

Well, we might take our water back into the Whanganui ... stop it going over Tuwharetoa's maunga and into Tainui's River ..

But sell the electricity of course ... ol' whitey has taught us well .. rip of the consumers so we make a profit!

[bogan]

But sell the electricity of course ... ol' whitey has taught us well .. rip of the consumers so we make a profit!

And there's your answer, you embrace these eurocentric ideals when there's money in it for you; and claim they have wronged you, well when there is money/property in it for you too. Seems like the european way of life is the way to go, lucky we came over an hooked you guys up with it right?

[MisterD]

built by Govenor Grey to process Māori-grown wheat into flour

Being a sales-type person, I've always strongly believed that if you give something away for free, it isn't valued by the recipient.

It's about time we rectified that and levied a technology licencing fee on Iwi to allow continued use of all the stuff that the white man brought and I'm sorry, but no more motorcycling for you, until you've paid your "Maori miles". It's
not so bad though, if you join Dirt Division, you're only paying for the wheels and engine component and you don't need to stump up for the sealed-road bit.

Now, I just need to go away and calculate what you owe per-word for the written alphabet.

[Winston001]

Hei aha? Facts have never stopped you in the past ...

In 1771 in a letter James Cook wrote Māori are "a strong, well-made, active people, rather above the common size ..."

Henrik Haelbos (on Tasman's ship) recorded of Māori: "These people were rough, uncivilized strong, full of verve ..." (that doesn't sound poorly noutished to me).

Monkhouse (On the Endevour) wrote that in Tolaga Bay the local peope had about 100 acres under cultivation (so much for the hunetr-gatrherers ... they were farming as well).

Cook (1769) records: "The people in these Canoes made a very good appearance being al stout and wel made men ..."

PLenty more ... that's enough ...

And in her book Two Worlds Anne Salmond writes of Europe at the time of first contact in GodZone: "The average lifespan was short - in seventeenth century Paris, the average life expectancy was 23 years (although some people lived into their eighties and nineties), while in the ruling families of Western Europe during this period the average male life expectancy was 28 years and the average female lifespan was 34 yerars (Salmond, page 48, citing Kamen, Henry, 1971, The Iron Century: Social Change in Europe 1550-1660, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Salmond also wtrite (page 10) "Europeans [of the time] lived about as long as pre-Europen Maori, but overall they were prone to disease and quite often less well fed."

Very good, thanks for that. I was wrong. Must have been remembering some other exploration report.

My apologies.

[Drew]

It's getting a bit "us and them" again. People don't try to see past that, and it makes discussion moot.

I am truly interested to hear a compelling argument for the Maori positive here.

As an aside, can someone tell me how a tribe owns lambton quay in Wellington? I thought that shit was under water before the White devil got here.

[bogan]

It's getting a bit "us and them" again. People don't try to see past that, and it makes discussion moot.

How is it ever not though? Who gets the money, they do; who pays for it, we do. I mean FFS, my ancestors were scottish or some shit, those brawlers didn't sign no treaty...

[SPman]

...So Maori - in this Pakeha view - are to be subject to a low threshold of Pakeha intolerance, but Maori must have basically unlimited tolerance to put up with whatever Pakeha impose - and this is held up as the recipe for race relations harmony. It is template for the domination and dependence of Maori; and the Pakeha wouldn't have it any other way - certainly not this one. This is the colonial conceit common in every country taken over by European immigrants: the natives can co-exist with us as long as they do what we tell them, when we tell them and how we tell them, and if they don't... they don't get to exist any more.

Along with the conceit is the sheer hypocrisy, especially considering what is going on in Canterbury right now. The elected regional councillors were sacked by the National government because they refused to allocate water to the farmers. The government intend to extend the undemocratic take-over until their appointees can give all the water away to their farmer chums. The scarce water resource on the plains are being divided as if the Crown owns it all. The water is valuable, it can be put into the possession of someone and those rights are recognised by the council and the other Crown agencies, so it does have all the attributes of property and ownership as discussed above. Pakeha don't have a problem with the Crown owning it of course because the Crown is an instrument of the Pakeha and can be relied on to do their bidding (against the interests of Maori).

The facts of how the official Crown position of "no-one owns the water" came about and how Pakeha think about water is ignored. The fact is that in most instances the Crown (and Pakeha via the Crown) asserted control over various water bodies against the wishes of Maori. The story of why the Crown controls water is shameful, unlawful, unconstitutional (Treaty breaches at the least) and opportunistic in the extreme. For example the original declaration of war by the NZ government on the Kingites and Tainui in 1863 prohibited all Maori travelling by night from the waterways around Auckland. That confiscation declaration took all the lands "up to the waters" of the Waitemata and Manukau. The reason the Crown can claim control is because they murdered and massacred their way through the country on an aggressive 'ethnic cleansing' mission - and seeing as how the Crown is bound by the Treaty that can be no basis for legitimate ownership of the land, the water or anything else in those areas for that matter.

Whenever it's "inconvenient", we get the same "Fuckin Maaris get everything, it'll cost us (suddenly the government's money comes directly out of your pockets), useless cunts, bludgers, take back everything "we " gave them," etc etc divisive bullshit - especially when it seems to be the only way to get the government to hold back the asset sales, which are endorsed by a massive 22% or less, of the population.

It just makes all those involved look like the pathetic, whining, selfish cunts they are!

[Drew]

Whenever it's "inconvenient", we get the same "Fuckin Maaris get everything, it'll cost us (suddenly the government's money comes directly out of your pockets), useless cunts, bludgers, take back everything "we " gave them," etc etc divisive bullshit - especially when it seems to be the only way to get the government to hold back the asset sales, which are endorsed by a massive 22% or less, of the population.

It just makes all those involved look like the pathetic, whining, selfish cunts they are!

Hahahaha, excellent example of the finger pointing.

No fuckin mirrors at your house or summat? You have just done what you are having a bit h about!

[Matariki]

Alright, I don't know whether or not I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I wanted to post some of the facts for those that are actually interested. Please keep in mind that I do not support either the Water nor Wind claim movements.

For those wanting to know in A nutshell what is going on (at least from those making this claim), I found this Q&A: http://roiamaori.wordpress.com/2012/...d-asset-sales/

According to Tohunga (the Maori religion/wisdom), none of us own anything. The God's (in this case Tangaroa and Io) technically own the water as according to Tohunga, Io (the original God who made all the other Gods), assigned Tangaroa to oversee and look after it. Now, I don't hold to Tohunga as my world view but I wanted to check the claims of those that are using it to support their cases in both the Water and Wind claims.

As for the treaty, it states the following;

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf. - http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics...y/english-text

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona. - http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics...aty/maori-text

In the English text, Māori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed 'exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties'. Māori also agreed to the Crown's exclusive right to purchase their land. Some Māori (and British) later stated that they understood the Crown to have a first option rather than an exclusive right to buy.

In the Māori text, Māori were guaranteed 'te tino rangatiratanga' or the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and all their property and treasures. Māori also agreed to give the Crown the right to buy their land if they wished to sell it. It is not certain if the Maori text clearly conveyed the implications of exclusive Crown purchase. - http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics...ween-the-texts

Both texts don't mention the legal ownership of fresh water bodies (lakes, rivers, streams etc.), but rather the legal ownership of land and what passes through it (excluding the sea, the Maori have rights to use the sea and oversee it if the land they own includes the beach front - traditional fishing grounds). Technically, both the Maori and Pakeha (foreigners), if they own the land that the water passes through, then they have legal ownership over the water (within the law, including the Maori hapu who signed the treaty of Waitangi). However its important to note that the pan Maori movement changed some the legal aspects in terms of Maori identity and affiliation;

During the 19th and 20th centuries, iwi (tribes) began to replace hapū (clans or descent groups) as the main political body. From the mid- to late 19th century, Māori had increasingly sought pan-tribal unity in order to oppose government measures that were not in Māori interests. Government policy actually favoured the shift from hapū to iwi, as the Crown preferred to deal with a small number of regional iwi groups rather than numerous hapū. After 1945, tribal trust boards were formed on an iwi basis in order to settle historical Māori grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi. This process continues today. Many tribes have formed regional iwi groupings to lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal. The 1992 fisheries settlement was with iwi rather than hapū. Today most Māori tribal organisations are formed at an iwi rather than hapū level. Usually they are legally constituted tribal trust boards and rūnanga (managing bodies). - http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/tribal-organisation/6

But here's the twist; some of the Hapu (subtribes) and Iwi (tribes) (under the representation of their respective chiefs) did not sign the treaty. But Because of the Pan Maori movement, its not as simple as stating this Iwi 'did' or 'didn't' sign. In the days of when the treaty was being signed, the territory of an Iwi was viewed as its own country within a continent, Aotearoa/New Zealand. The Hapu were viewed by the Maori at the time as independent states. I think the way it is determined today with which Iwi signed or didn't sign is based on which Chiefs at the time had the most Mana (Influence/Authority) within their Iwi. As a result the following Iwi are recognized to have not signed the treaty; Tuhoe, Waikato, Te Arawa, Ngati Paoa and Tuwharetoa.

Which means ideally for the Iwi that did not sign as a whole, continue to communally own their territory and have first say over procedures (with the exception of if the Iwi decides to sell their land to the crown or those that are bound by the crown regarding its property laws (foreigners of non Maori decent or recognition). So the Maori King is correct when he states that his Iwi as a whole did not give up their Mana to the crown over the water that goes through the land that they own. But John Key is also right when he states that no one owns the water. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10833926

But some lingering questions still remain;
What happens if a Hapu within an Iwi (that is recognized legally to have not signed the treaty as a whole), states that they did sign the treaty (or vice versa)?
Who has the ultimate legal authority in this case, the Iwi or the Crown?
Which movement is legally more valid, the treaty of Waitangi, or the Pan-Maori movement?

Here's where I stand; Is that the Te Reo version of the treaty of Waitangi should of been the most legally valid out of the two translations considering that most of the chiefs who signed the treaty, consented to and signed the Te Reo version. Legally accepting the Pan-Maori movement in my view was a mistake (and this is coming from someone who is Maori/Pakeha and whose direct ancestors signed the treaty of Waitangi), In my opinion based on what I know, if the Te Reo version of the treaty of Waitangi was deemed to be the most legally valid out of the two translations, we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now and the Pan-Maori movement probably wouldn't of occurred. However I also believe that its too late now to rewrite historical legal documents without violating the rights of all New Zealand citizens who own and use property (whether their own private land, or communally owned land or public land), I believe that all New Zealander's should have a right to own their own property and use public property. If something were to change, It wouldn't change without a paying some form of a great price. I can't see anyway of how this could be resolved peacefully, even more so with the increasing number of Maori returning to their roots. The whole thing is a complete and utter mess; culturally, financially and politically.

[FJRider]

Alright, I don't know whether or not I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I wanted to post some of the facts for those that are actually interested. Please keep in mind that I do not support either the Water nor Wind claim movements.

Perhaps what you need to know what Maori want ...

Under the claim, they want:

* The law changed to recognise Maori rangatiratanga and control over fresh water and geothermal resources. (This includes Lakes)

* Compensation for past use and the loss of economic use, and payment for future use.

* A remedy for Crown failure to allow compensation in past and as yet unsettled Treaty settlements.

* The return of all land connected with the generation or transmission of hydro-electricity or geothermal electricity that memorialised under 27B of the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986 [tagged for possible future settlements] and/or a recommendation that the claimants be granted a substantial interest in the Crown's power generating state-owned enterprises.

But it's not about the money ... right ... ???

In 1967 the Lakes and rivers were nationalised ... to allow the free use of these ... and safeguarded for the benefit of all. The care of these national assets were put into the control and management of the goverment of the day. And whichever goverment party is in power.
There have been attempts by maori in the past with these claims ... but Labour never obliged. They no doubt hoped National would.

I doubt it though .... But if you believe the claims are genuine ... Vote (Tick) Maori Party in the next election.

[jonbuoy]

Mystical Gods, tribes, tribal leaders, "sacred" places this is still 2012 were talking about? Why are people still trying to drag old ground up from the 1800´s? How many worldwide wars and conflicts have we had since then?

[Winston001]

Alright, I don't know whether or not I'm talking to a brick wall here, but I wanted to post some of the facts for those that are actually interested. .....

Now, I don't hold to Tohunga as my world view but I wanted to check the claims of those that are using it to support their cases in both the Water and Wind claims.

Good post.

The conflict of law is cultural. Under English law (adopted in the British Commonwealth and United States) the King/Queen/Crown owns everything. The lot. Land water fish fowl and air. Everything. Our concept of free-hold title to land is at the pleasure of the Crown. Eminent domain means the Crown (State) can take back anything you think you own - duely compensated.

Aboriginal (in the classical sense) cultures hold that everything belongs to their gods and can not be owned by the people. There is no concept of personal ownership but personal possession - yes.

In real life both of these concepts are very close. Humans pass away and ownership cannot survive death. Thus the fundamental ownership underneath always remains with the Crown or the gods who cannot die.

Pakeha say Maori granted all their rights to Queen Victoria. But Maori say that was always subject to their own gods and heiritage which they understood Victoria would protect. Mostly she didn't...

[Matariki]

Perhaps what you need to know what Maori want ...

Under the claim, they want:

* The law changed to recognise Maori rangatiratanga and control over fresh water and geothermal resources. (This includes Lakes)

* Compensation for past use and the loss of economic use, and payment for future use.

* A remedy for Crown failure to allow compensation in past and as yet unsettled Treaty settlements.

* The return of all land connected with the generation or transmission of hydro-electricity or geothermal electricity that memorialised under 27B of the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986 [tagged for possible future settlements] and/or a recommendation that the claimants be granted a substantial interest in the Crown's power generating state-owned enterprises.

But it's not about the money ... right ... ???

In 1967 the Lakes and rivers were nationalised ... to allow the free use of these ... and safeguarded for the benefit of all. The care of these national assets were put into the control and management of the goverment of the day. And whichever goverment party is in power.
There have been attempts by maori in the past with these claims ... but Labour never obliged. They no doubt hoped National would.

I doubt it though .... But if you believe the claims are genuine ... Vote (Tick) Maori Party in the next election.

Although I have family that work in the Maori Party (Tariana Turia and Dr. Keri Lawson Te Aho), but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the Maori parties propositions. Like I said, I don't support the Pan-Maori movement nor the Water or Wind claims (I'm neutral at the moment regarding the Water claim). Its hard to say who is after what in the Water claim. I don't generally trust what is posted by scoop or stuffnz, as their articles are obscure and I feel are lacking in important details, I would however be interested at looking at recorded interviews with those involved. As for what you posted, do you have links or anything that I can have a look at as I'm unfamiliar with the statements (I don't know whether they're your own, or if they're quoted.)

When you say 'Maori' are you referring to everyone who is ethnically Maori, or the Maori party, or an Iwi or Hapu? I'm Maori and I know what I want, some ibuprofen because this whole current political situation is giving me a headache.

[Winston001]

Mystical Gods, tribes, tribal leaders, "sacred" places this is still 2012 were talking about? Why are people still trying to drag old ground up from the 1800´s? How many worldwide wars and conflicts have we had since then?

LOL agreed but if you delve into it our ideas laws and ways of thinking range back to foundations in the 13th century. Magna Carta is part of our law (+ the USA + Commonwealth) and is used today.

I'm no expert but the heavy thinking goes back into Roman Law and beyond that to the ancient Greeks who came up with the ideas of democracy and individual rights 3000 years ago.

Seriously, it is thanks to those guys that we have the freedoms we take for granted today.

[Matariki]

Mystical Gods, tribes, tribal leaders, "sacred" places this is still 2012 were talking about? Why are people still trying to drag old ground up from the 1800´s? How many worldwide wars and conflicts have we had since then?

Sorry, but I was unable to process enough cognitive data to give a damn to educate you on the historical foundations of human society and cultral identity.