How much do we really know about our history?

[Katman]

it doesnt much matter why or how, what matters is how we respond now and in the future.

Well I'd like to think that if reparations are being offered then they're being offered for genuine grievances.

[jellywrestler]

http://www.kiwifrontline.com/blogs/bruce-moon

it's like giving away an old fucked vintage car from the back paddock, then once it's restored back to original claiming it back for free. As was stated they want current developed values not untouched bush etc that was supposedly stolen from them....
it also mentions the whalers getting their womb Brooms into the local mud people, while it improved the health etc what did it do to the race.
imagine if all your sires were the the freezing workers of nowadays etc

[Katman]

For a long time now I've felt that the Waitangi Disputes process has been a gravy train for a great many people. (But as Paul said, not for the people who most need it).

I don't deny that offences occurred in the past that deserve recognition and reparation but as I said, they have to be based on facts rather than semi-facts that have been distorted to push forward someone's agenda.

[Katman]

And to link this thread tenuously to the Tommy Robinson thread (and a few others), those facts need to be examined dispassionately and honestly - without fear of being automatically accused of racism.

[TheDemonLord]

LOL begging the question much?

my point of view is this: it doesnt much matter why or how, what matters is how we respond now and in the future. Just one topical example: Do you consider that the full resources of one of the most powerful departments of the bureaucracy should be bought to bear on someone who borrowed money to stay afloat ? bear in mind the 8 year journey of litigation in the face of already decided caselaw which the MSD lost.

is that what we want ? or can we do better?

I don't know the specific example you are referring to, so I can't comment on it - I disagree that the How or why isn't important - if you want to know where you are going, you need to know where you've come from and where you are.

Let's agree that there is inequality and it disproportionately affects Maori and Pacific island communities.

There are 2 basic approaches to it:

1: The individualistic approach (which is what I tend to favour) which is that we give the individuals the tools they need to elevate themselves out of their current situation
2: The Collectivist approach (which I'm really not a fan of) which loosely speaking determines that as a member of the group, you are incapable of taking care of yourself without government intervention.

Despite that statement however, I can concede that there are times when it is right and proper for my Tax money to go to those disaffected and yet - I keep coming back to this axiom:

Give a man a fish - he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish - he eats for the rest of his life.

I don't know where the balance is, but it seems to me that there is an individual component that isn't being accounted for - which is why alot of the positive interventions aren't having the desired Effect.

[Paul in NZ]

Give a man a fish - he eats for a day, Teach a man to fish - he eats for the rest of his life..

Don't need to teach them how to fish - they own half of Sealord... teaching them to fish sustainably - ah now theres a problem

[Katman]

teaching them to fish sustainably - ah now theres a problem

(Channeling Mashman)...

I bet a Resource Based Economy would do it.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Let’s assume both sides of a treaty settlement process have the most honourable of intentions. We are still faced with a European solution to a problem caused by differences between European and Polynesian thinking.

Paul in NZ makes his point well and clearly. That said, It will be difficult for some to follow that way of thinking and hence utilise that approach because it requires an individualist world view. Whether original or evolved, te ao or the Maori world view is a collective one, not individualistic.

I can have all the empathy I like, I can work really hard at being open minded and I can choose to try and be fair. I still cannot fully fathom what life is like for anyone who comes from a different ethnicity or life experience. Any more than they can for me. In short it’s hard to genuinely see things as others do and we definitely see things through the lens of our ethnicity and our experience.

That being the case when we add imperfect people subject to the mix we end up with the cluster fuck which is the treaty tribunal process. If Maori were truly happy with it would we see repeat claims? It’s pretty clear pakeha have reservations, no matter how invested they are in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Katman]

If Maori were truly happy with it would we see repeat claims?

I remember about 20 years ago an enormous figure was offered as a full and final settlement.

It was turned down on the basis that while the recipients might have been happy with it, they couldn't speak for how their future generations might view it.

That, to me, smacks of a process that is never likely to be settled.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Tend to agree. I think it is fair to redress past wrongs. I am not convinced the mechanism in place is the correct one. Certainly what little I have observed is that it’s the few at the top of the pile that derive any benefit. There is a limit to the healing and growth our society can expect while that model persists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

Certainly what little I have observed is that it’s the few at the top of the pile that derive any benefit. There is a limit to the healing and growth our society can expect while that model persists.

I take umbrage with that statement - the Pareto distribution isn't a model that we have implemented and maintained - it's near universal - and not just in economic terms - everything from Sports, to Music, to the abundance of Elements in the Universe.

Whilst there's an element of truth that some of those who appear to have everything may have got it via dubious means consider this statement:

You've got a potentially fatal brain injury and you have to choose a Doctor to help you:

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose? Because this is at the heart of the matter - most people have no medical experience, a small number have some and an even smaller number have a LOT of Skills and experience - and when we are making choices - we tend to choose those who are successful - which results in them getting more skills and experience which means they get a greater number of opportunities.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed.

[Katman]

I take umbrage with that statement - the Pareto distribution isn't a model that we have implemented and maintained - it's near universal - and not just in economic terms - everything from Sports, to Music, to the abundance of Elements in the Universe.

Whilst there's an element of truth that some of those who appear to have everything may have got it via dubious means consider this statement:

You've got a potentially fatal brain injury and you have to choose a Doctor to help you:

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose? Because this is at the heart of the matter - most people have no medical experience, a small number have some and an even smaller number have a LOT of Skills and experience - and when we are making choices - we tend to choose those who are successful - which results in them getting more skills and experience which means they get a greater number of opportunities.

I don't think this is something that can be fixed.

At the risk of this turning into some sort of Graystone/TDL fallacy saga, circumstances will often dictate that many people are forced to simply choose the doctor that they can afford.

[imac]

For a long time now I've felt that the Waitangi Disputes process has been a gravy train for a great many people. (But as Paul said, not for the people who most need it).

I don't deny that offences occurred in the past that deserve recognition and reparation but as I said, they have to be based on facts rather than semi-facts that have been distorted to push forward someone's agenda.

True words here and Paul's caveat is spot on

[jellywrestler]

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Who do you choose?

the one with the biggest tits of course...

[pritch]

Doctor 1: A recently graduated Med student with no real world experience
Doctor 2: A recently graduated Med student with little real world experience
Doctor 3: A recently graduated Med student also with no real world experience
Doctor 4: A family GP Doctor with a few years experience
Doctor 5: A surgeon with less than 5 years Surgical experience
Doctor 6: A world leading Bran specialist with 20+ years experience

Maybe I need to clean my glasses. There must be a very subtle distinction between Doctors #1 and #3. I could understand a bran specialist curing constipation, but brain surgery?