Myths of Waitangi Day – & Hikoi

Written By: - Date published: 9:55 am, February 5th, 2014 - 289 comments
Categories: activism, greens, mana, Maori Issues, Mining, news, racism, sustainability - Tags:

As usual, our  MSM does its infotainment coverage of Waitangi Day, this year with our PM leading the jonolistic charge.

The corporate media loves a bit of drama and conflict, and tends to tell it from the position of the dominant Pakeha culture. And the corporate news media has little historical focus beyond the ratings-driven drama of the day. It does nothing to counter the myths that keep getting re-circulated in relation to Waitangi Day and beyond.

waitangi

It is necessary to look elsewhere to get an understanding of the impact the of colonisation and the realities of the Treaty of Waitangi for Māori. Today Morgan Godfery’s latest post outlines the history of Waitangi Day, and the myths around it. He begins with a Waitangi Day bingo card (take a look via the link, it says a lot), then explains:

Bingo is a witty critique of Waitangi Day clichés, but it’s also something more: this is the geography of Pakeha myth-making. Each box is a false political claim. Prepare to hear each claim repeatedly and under the worn robe of “debate”.

Waitangi Day angst isn’t new. Respected columnists will declare the day “broke”, less-respected columnists might announce it’s “a day of lies” while others will broadcast accusations of reverse racism. But most will plea for unity. Yet navigate the calls for unity with caution. Underneath the plea is a denial – Maori have no right to protest their lot. This is the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day.

In 1973 the third Labour government introduced the New Zealand Day Act. Although Waitangi Day had always been acknowledged, that acknowledgment wasn’t codified in a public holiday. New Zealand Day – a misnomer – was intended to become the foundation of national identity. A splendid celebration of nationhood.

Except it wasn’t. There could never be unity without equality. The betrayal of the Treaty went too deep, and the collateral effects of Treaty breaches went too far, for Maori to accept a celebration of nationhood that didn’t exist. In 1973 Nga Tamatoa occupied Waitangi with black armbands. They declared the day one of mourning for the broken promises of the Treaty including the loss of millions of hectares of Maori land.

Godfery continues with the history of the Day.  He then explains why, and how Waitangi Day has a different meaning for Māori from the one represented in the dominant, Pakeha dominated discourse.  The post ends:

The health, wealth and education gaps exist and they exist off the back of the broken promises of the Treaty. Waitangi Day is where Maori can reveal New Zealand’s separate realities.

But the movement to rebrand Waitangi Day won’t acknowledge that. It’s easier to switch the conversation than acknowledge that one group is dominant over the other. This is the new assimilation – the battle for history and contemporary meaning. There is a regular plea to make Waitangi Day “our” day. The layers of meaning are clear: Waitangi Day belongs to monocultural nationhood, not multicultural pluralism. Sit down or shut up. That disrespects Maori realities. But it also misunderstands the Treaty itself: the Treaty didn’t create New Zealand – that came later – the Treaty created a bicultural relationship.

I’m not going to celebrate the birth of a nation or protest the failed promise of that nation. I’ll quietly honour the legacy of resistance and those who are getting it done. I’ll acknowledge that colonisation isn’t a distant tragedy, but an on-going process. Maori know it because they experience it. Pakeha might not, but that’s no excuse to deny Maori their agency on Waitangi Day. Myths have many authors, but reality can expose them. That’s what Waitangi Day is about most of all.

I hope you take the time to read the full post by Morgan Godfery, because it explains the significance of the Day very clearly.  And the bingo card provides an excellent graphic summary of the myths of Waitangi Day.

Meanwhile, the hikoi continues at Waitangi, focused on protecting our lands and seas from destructive corporate exploitation.  And, of course 3 News last night just talked up the conflict and divisions. Although Hone Harawira’s response to Anadarko’s fail in Taranaki got a chuckle from me:

Anadarko’s announced it’s plugging and abandoning its well in the Taranaki basin after it was found there wasn’t enough oil.

This made Mr Harawira happy, who said, “Ka kite Anadarko and the rest of you. Take the message – take a hike”.

Image tweeted by Metiria Turei – her view of the hikoi this morning:

hikoi waitangi turei view

Julie Anne Genter’s tweeted image from the hikoi:

hikoi waitangi julie anne genter

Tomorrow I will be looking to honour the legacy of Waitangi Day, and reflect on its meaning:  I will be looking beyond the MSM coverage and to the reality of daily lives for Māori, the inequalities that continue to exist, and how that differs from the myths that just keep on being circulated.

[update] Rachel Smalley has some criticisms of MSM news coverage of Waitangi and says that more “balance” is needed. [h/t Morgan Godfery]

I had a great day at Waitangi last year. It was like a carnival. I was welcomed wherever I went. Maori were cooking and selling food, culture and craft was on display, and it’s set in a truly beautiful part of the world. It is emotive and yet there is a lightness to it too. I loved it.

So as I watch the way Waitangi is reported in the mainstream media this year, I am again frustrated. The media is selling the public short and it should be mindful of the role it plays in race relations in this country.

289 comments on “Myths of Waitangi Day – & Hikoi ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1
    5 February 2014 at 10:07 am

    If jostling the Governor General is disgraceful, what does that make the policy of rendering government small enough to drown in the bathtub?

    Is the governor general even a proper Kiwi? He looks more “Iwi” to me. Where’s his silver fern?

  2. phil 2
    5 February 2014 at 11:04 am

    Maori disadvantage is one part of increasing disadvantage for more and more people in Aotearoa. We are increasingly in the one waka. Rowing together for less kai. Serious change is upon us.

  3. Pasupial 3
    5 February 2014 at 11:05 am

    Karol

    Thank you for this post.

    Countdown – to charges of hypocrisy being leveled against Turei flying from; Wellington to Dunedin to Northland, while protesting oil drilling – commences.

  4. Bill 4
    5 February 2014 at 11:14 am

    Possibly a dumb immigrant comment/question coming up. Am I right in remembering that before the National government of the day introduced the treaty settlement process, that the Treaty was routinely called out for being illegitimate rather than being regarded as ‘a living document’ as per in the Godfrey piece?

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.1
      5 February 2014 at 11:32 am

      Are you referring to the discrepancy between the two treaties that were in existence at the time it was being put forward: the one written in Maori and the English translation?

      Where ‘sovereignty’ had no direct translation and so ‘kawanatanga’ was used – which doesn’t mean handing over all your rights. Similar issue occurred with the use of ‘rangatiratanga’ :

      “The English version states the British intentions were to protect Māori interests from the encroaching British settlement, provide for British settlement and establish a government to maintain peace and order.

      The Māori text suggests that the Queen’s main promises to Māori were to provide a government while securing tribal rangatiratanga (chiefly autonomy or authority over their own area) and Māori land ownership for as long as they wished to retain it.

      First article

      In the English text, Māori leaders gave the Queen ‘all the rights and powers of sovereignty’ over their land. In the Māori text, Māori leaders gave the Queen ‘te kawanatanga katoa’ or the complete government over their land.”

      http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts

      • Bill 4.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 12:38 pm

        No bl. I was referring to the difference in approach inherent to regarding the Treaty as illegitimate (both versions) as opposed to viewing it as something that can be used as a ‘starting point’ of some sort or other.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.1.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 12:44 pm

          I still don’t understand, sorry.

          I was asking whether you were meaning that there was a view that the treaty is illegitimate because there are two versions – (I might not have asked clearly).

          If not, do you have some link explaining the ‘illegitimacy’ theory you are referring to?

          • Rob 4.1.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 1:58 pm

            Blue, if you don’t have an answer to his question or even know what he is on about , why be indignant that he does not answer yours. I think his point being that there was very little in the way of any attempt at settlement in previous years. That is quite correct.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.1.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 2:03 pm

              I do not feel indignant, Rob, nor believe that my comment indicates any such sentiments – am simply attempting to understand what Bill is referring to.

          • Bill 4.1.1.1.2
            6 February 2014 at 11:43 am

            Been ‘netless’ bl.

            What I’m trying to get at, is that there is not a single treaty that ‘the crown’ entered into that has been honoured. They have always been ‘mere’ pieces of paper that served to justify or sanction various thefts and oppressions….right from the Treaty of Union in 1707 through the treaties drawn up between the crown and various N.American tribes etc.

            On the basis of the reality that has flowed from all other treaties, it’s reasonable to assert that The Treaty of Waitangi- just like all the others – is a crock…that it was a cynical device used to legalise dominance under the legal structures recognised by the oppressor (the crown and its agents) , and so needn’t be afforded any legitimacy by those it’s used against.

            That then leaves the question of sovereignty open and any debate about sovereignty having been ceded redundant. I thought that was the position of many Maori before settlements began to be awarded through the Waitangi Tribunal…that the treaty was illegitimate and there was therefore no question around ceded sovereignty. But I could be mistaken.

            (That said, I note the point made by marty mars below)

            • Chooky 4.1.1.1.2.1
              6 February 2014 at 1:42 pm

              @ Bill…….The Treaty of Waitangi “is a crock”?…not worth the paper it was written on …..really!

              …so what is your point Bill?….there shouldnt be any treaties what so ever…..no founding legal systems ….no founding peoples ……no Nationhood , no sovereignty, no protection of indigenous culture ?

              …….your arguments would make New Zealand ripe for a modern day international Captialist Neo Lib Club corporate takeover ….or big countries gobbling up little countries …and the indigenous populations and cultures and histories so much collateral damage?

              ….seems like this has happened rather recently to the Tibetans and the Palestinians …(but then if i recall correctly you dont have much sympathy for the Tibetans)

              • weka …
                6 February 2014 at 2:19 pm

                No, I think he is arguing that Te Tiriti bound Māori into loss of sovereignty and that prior to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, Māori considered the Treaty not worth much and that their sovereignty was and still is intact. And the inference being that Māori had avenues other than the Treaty for making that sovereignty a surity. Or something like that perhaps.

                Bill, a couple of thoughts. My understanding is that by the time the Brits got here things had moved on from many of the other colonisations by them and other Europeans, so the ToW was better and more robust and more fair than say what happened in North America.

                I know that Māori have been seeking legal redress for injustices continually since soon after the Treaty was signed. I always understood that to be in the context of the Treaty agreement being broken by the Crown, but then most of what I have read and heard has been said since the establishment of the Tribunal. Where did you come across the idea that pre-Tribunal, Māori considered the treaty useless?

                • Bill …
                  6 February 2014 at 2:28 pm

                  Where did you come across the idea that pre-Tribunal, Māori considered the treaty useless?

                  I’ve a vague memory of that being the basic approach (by a sizeable minority?) of Maori as portrayed through mainstream media sources in the early 90s. (A ‘rip it up’ rather than ‘honour it’ approach) Like I say, it’s a vague memory, which is why I asked the question I did in the original comment above.

                  • weka …
                    6 February 2014 at 2:53 pm

                    hmmm, I have vague memories of the slogan “the Treaty is a Fraud”.

                    Looks like part of the protest movement in the 70s and 80s

                    This poster from about the late 1970s expresses the frustration and impatience of the Māori land-rights movement in that period. In the first years after its formation in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was relatively ineffective at addressing long-standing Māori grievances. Many younger radicals argued that the Treaty of Waitangi was a fraudulent document and that Māori had never surrendered their sovereignty to the Crown.

                    http://www.teara.govt.nz/mi/ephemera/36376/treaty-protest-posters-the-treaty-is-a-fraud

                    But if we go back further

                    Campaign for ratification

                    From about the mid nineteenth century, Māori campaigned for proper recognition of the Treaty, generally asking that it be ratified or otherwise made a part of New Zealand law. In the 1960s and the 1970s, Māori activists continued this campaign, sometimes making it a focus of their Waitangi Day protests. In 1975 the Treaty was given some recognition with the Treaty of Waitangi Act. This established the Waitangi Tribunal, which was given the task to investigating contemporary breaches of the Treaty. However since it was not able to investigate historical breaches, was underfunded, and generally unsympathetic to claimants, most Māori were disappointed by the Tribunal.

                    Possibly as a result to the failure of the Waitangi Tribunal to achieve much, many Māori activists in the early 1980s stopped asking for the Treaty to be honoured and instead argued that it was a fraudulent document. They argued that Māori had been tricked in 1840, that either they had never agreed to sign away their sovereignty or that Pākehā breaches of the Treaty had rendered it invalid. Since the Treaty was invalid, it was argued, the New Zealand government had no right to sovereignty over the country. This argument was broadly expressed in Donna Awatere’s book Māori Sovereignty.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_protest_movement#Campaign_for_ratification

              • Bill …
                6 February 2014 at 2:21 pm

                …so what is your point Bill?

                I thought my point was pretty clear. But I’ll reiterate. The Treaty of Waitangi is the same as all the other treaties signed off by the crown. They created a legal convenience for the crown and its agents to carry out their various acts of theft and oppression under the auspices of a certain legal legitimacy…a legitimacy based on a legal framework that belonged wholly to the crown. No treaty has ever served to protect or enhance the position of the lesser (non-crown) partner.

                Can you really not comprehend that the Treaty of Waitangi (in line with all others) primarily granted powers to the crown while diminishing the powers and rights of the co-signees? And where do you get the idea that sovereignty and/or legitimacy ought to be rightly and properly granted or recognised by some paternalistic foreign crown via treaties?

                As for the Treaty of Waitangi (or any other treaty) offering protections to indigenous peoples and their cultures against the threat of ‘bigger countries gobbling up little countries’ … that is precisely what treaties have historically enabled…the subsuming of the lesser by the greater.

                Are you then being serious in suggesting that the existence of some treaty would have saved the Palestinians from Israeli domination and subjugation??? Or that the Chinese/Tibetan scenario would have unfolded differently if a treaty had been signed at some historical juncture???

                And you are incorrect to assert I have no sympathy for Tibetans by the way. Maybe you confuse my short shrift for attempts by the previous elites to reassert their dominance with a supposed lack of sympathy for Tibetan people?

                • weka …
                  6 February 2014 at 2:34 pm

                  My main problem with this argument is that it renders the intentions of the Māori signatories invisible or irrelevant. That the Crown behaved/behaves in the way you describe doesn’t negate what Māori intended.

                  “And where do you get the idea that sovereignty and/or legitimacy ought to be rightly and properly granted or recognised by some paternalistic foreign crown via treaties?”

                  Sovereignty wasn’t ‘granted’ by the treaty. It was protected within the newly established state. Here (not overseas). A sensible protection all things considered. The English version tries to make the Crown as the overarching entity (as per your question) and Māori a subset within that, but the Māori version was signed by two independent ‘nations’. I think your argument risks making out that the Crown’s behaviour trumps Māori intention. I don’t think it does.

                  • Bill …
                    6 February 2014 at 2:42 pm

                    Sovereignty wasn’t ‘granted’ by the treaty.

                    I was responding to the implicit suggestion made in ‘Chooky’s’ comment as to the roles and worth of treaties…ie, that they paternalistically confer a host of protections and legitimacies.

                    • Chooky …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:57 pm

                      imo….. the alternative to the Treaty was worse….the Chiefs who signed made a pragmatic decision that signing afforded them, their people and lands more rights and protection

                      ….the Australian Aborigines wished they had also had such a Treaty

                      …I will listen to Maori criticizing the Treaty but not outsiders who have other agendas

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:59 pm

                      That’s confusing. I took your comments to mean that you think the treaty is useless, and that there was no legitimacy in what the Crown did.

                      My point still stands, that if you think the treaty is useless you render the power and intentions of the Māori invisible or inert.

                    • Bill …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:09 pm

                      You’d be right to assume I see treaties as locking in power asymmetries (rather than ‘useless’).

                      Also, I’m absolutely certain my ancestors did not give ‘the crown’ or its agents any permission to sign off on any treaty, anywhere – they (the crown) simply assumed the authority to do it. So, in my opinion, neither it nor any other treaty is legitimate at all. They serve to rob us (Maori and non-Maori) of our rightful sovereignty by investing it in elites and their institutions.

                    • Bill …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      Pray tell ‘Chooky’, what is this ‘other agenda’ you appear to think I have?

                      Also, are you suggesting that all Pakeha, because they are not Maori, (outsiders) stfu and pretend the Treaty is just dinky? Fuck that.

                      btw. Can you give me a single example of a treaty that has worked out to the satisfaction of the co-signees? Just one?

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:42 pm

                      So you want to nullify the treaty, and do what exactly after that?

                      I get what you are saying in the abstract, but I think that much of what Te Tiriti is today is to do with pragmatics and what has built up in practice over the past 160 years.

                      Based on what you just said, we could have a conversation too about the illegitimacy of the nation known as NZ 🙂

                    • Bill …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:31 pm

                      Hmm. No I don’t want to ‘nullify the Treaty’. That would require me having a level of power I don’t possess and wouldn’t want to possess.

                      The question of the Treaty seems to always lead back to sovereignty. If you believe that it’s legitimate for sovereignty to be vested in others who can then exercise authority over those who do not possess it or the power to act it out, then the whole sovereignty issue becomes a ‘nothing’ to my mind.

                      If, on the other hand, you believe that sovereignty rightly belongs to people like you and me or who-ever and that it is we who should be enacting it directly, then the question of sovereignty becomes much more interesting and important – to my way of thinking.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:42 pm

                      I don’t think you can have it both ways though. If you want to explore democratic sovereignty, that necessitates conceiving of there being no Treaty. Which presents all sorts of dilemmas to be worked through.

                      If you want to start with a point where no-one has power over anyone else, I would need to understand the point of such a conversation, because as you know I would want to see how it could be applied in the world we live in.

                    • Bill …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:54 pm

                      Oh, I can conceive of there being no treaty…a mind experiment if you will. And, of course, there are many obvious implications with regards any continuation of any and all centers of power whose mere existence and function would deny us our right to exercise our sovereignty. I’m sure you could list a fair few institutions that would, by necessity, no longer be in existence if we invested sovereignty and the exercising of it in ourselves.

                      A new world then, not the one we live in. The two could never mesh 😉

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  6 February 2014 at 3:33 pm

                  @ Bill

                  Thanks for the response

                  I haven’t heard of this view, yet it stands to reason that Maori would consider the Treaty as defunct if the other partner was ignoring it. Why would Maori abide by a treaty when the other partner wasn’t?

                  It also stands to reason that if the other partner i.e. the ‘Crown’ starts to take their agreements more seriously, that the view amongst Maori would change and start considering that the Treaty was still ‘alive’ after all.

                  As for considering all Treaties fob offs. This is not without an element of truth, yet seems to be a pretty overly cynical stance.

                  What if people had taken that attitude toward the Magna Carta?

                  King John had no intention of abiding by the Magna Carta. His duplicity leads to the Barons War between 1215 – 1217. The rebel barons support the son of the king of France, Prince Louis in preference to King John. In 1216 Prince Louis invades England and marches to London where he receives support and is was proclaimed and accepted as King of England (although not actually crowned). King John dies in October. The Barons turn on Prince Louis and supports the nine year old son of King John who then became King Henry III of England.

                  This quote indicates truth to what you say i.e. “King John had no intention of abiding by the Magna Carta”, however that the other parties decided to hold the Crown to the agreement continues to have direct and positive ramifications for us still – it is one of our official constitutional documents!

                  From the same website:

                  “The Magna Carta is considered the founding document of English liberties and hence American liberties. “

                  I’m sure that the Magna Carta has its problems: has been changed and diluted and not perfect – yet if you are too cynical about ‘legal documents’ then you annihilate a lot of what is good and functioning well for us in our society.

                  To pre-empt a certain argument I looked up ‘Treaty’ to see if it was substantially different from a Charter and the free legal dictionary website implies the two are synonymous.

                  • Bill …
                    6 February 2014 at 6:41 pm

                    Thing about the Magna Carta is that it essentially seems to have revolved around the issue which of two power elites should exercise more power within a society. It wasn’t a treaty between two entirely discrete political or cultural entities with separate traditions, norms territories etc. That the power of the monarchy was lessened is, of course, a good thing and might be labelled progress. But were ordinary people any more empowered by it?

                    I’m aware that people will say (rightly) that parliaments are more accountable than monarchies. But to me, the authority of parliament is, like that of the monarchy, a denial of power being vested directly with ordinary people.

                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                      7 February 2014 at 4:00 pm

                      @ Bill,

                      I think you do have to acknowledge the power of precedent and also the changes in culture with regard to what you are suggesting – particularly precedent.

                      If you discredit all treaties and international agreements then, really, it is all back to square one – nothing, no principles, no basis on which to work from.

                      If you acknowledge precedent and how (despite things not being excellent) there is some acceptance that we need to treat differing cultures with respect (yeah I know, not always the case in practice) then we have a basis from which to work on creating a better world

                      Change happens often in increments – if these increments are mentally annihilated then the improvements that have occurred end up being annihilated eventually too.

                      “But were ordinary people any more empowered by it?”

                      Perhaps I can be “called” on the logical fallacy of ‘appealing to authority/the masses’ but re the Magna Carta

                      “Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom.”

                      [From: http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/magna-carta.html ]

                      I would consider that ordinary people have indeed been empowered by that document created in 1215

        • marty mars 4.1.1.2
          5 February 2014 at 12:55 pm

          imo bill – it would be great if the Treaty were honoured – that the agreement between some rangatira and The Crown in 1840 were honoured and given life and that this occur through equality and the actualisation of equality via tino rangatiratanga. But it does get complicated as so many rangatira didn’t, or refused, or weren’t asked, to sign. As noted those that did sign signed the Māori version with inherent meanings not the (disguised to steal the land) english versions.

          • PapaMike 4.1.1.2.1
            5 February 2014 at 2:05 pm

            Could I please be advised as to the following in this interesting posting.

            Assuming that each tribe understood a different dialect and even language, how did they understand what they were signing – could they read ? – I did not think so.
            Can you see my dilemma somebody.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 4.1.1.2.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

              I believe that in such instances the Maori version was read out (& perhaps explained?) to them by people who could read and speak Maori.

              There are signatures on the Treaty that are crosses that ‘represent’ the signatures of the Chiefs that didn’t write.

              • karol …
                5 February 2014 at 2:18 pm

                Actually many Maori had signatures that were far more sophisticated than mere crosses. They often were representations of a peron’s moko – had quite a bit in common with online avatars used today – though they used moko-based individually unique designs, rather than photographic images.

                • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                  5 February 2014 at 3:06 pm

                  I replied in the wrong place – there is a link of those signatures Karol mentions in the comment I made further down.

            • karol 4.1.1.2.1.2
              5 February 2014 at 2:14 pm

              Actually, the dialects are not so different. People from all the iwi could understand each other.

              In fact, on literacy in the 19th century – I have been told that Maori had a higher proportion of literacy than did the population in the UK at the time. Certainly Maori adopted reading and writing pretty readily.

              In contrast, it was only towards the end of the 19th century that working clases were given wide spread access to formal scholling in reading and writing.

              • marty mars …
                5 February 2014 at 2:38 pm

                yes the explanations were read out and it is easy to imagine the misunderstandings of basic concepts – mostly deliberate and sometimes accidental. But I don’t think any rangatira would have given up their mana – just didn’t and doesn’t happen.

                The dialects are interesting and would have been (and are now) identifiable – this is why Ngāi Tahu are Kāi Tahu and even Gāi Tahu – of course they didn’t get the ‘g’ sound so it is not included in written te reo Māori.

              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …
                5 February 2014 at 2:49 pm

                Ah! Here, I found a picture of some of those moko-signatures that Karol was referring to – These are some the signatures on the East Coast sheet of the Treaty of Waitangi:

                http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/hero-36349.jpg

                [ From this page ]

            • McFlock 4.1.1.2.1.3
              5 February 2014 at 2:28 pm

              If I recall the story correctly, a bilingual missionary translated the treaty into Maori on paper, then it was read out in that language and both were signed (not just at Waitangi, but in a months-long circumnavication of NZ afterwards as well).

              But then of course Tuhoi never even signed either, if I recall correctly.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                5 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

                Said missionary was bilingual enough to realise that “sovereignty” was something that was not for sale, and knowledgeable enough to know that “kawanatanga” was familiar to tangata whenua as the same relationship Pontius Pilate had to Caesar.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.2.1.4
              5 February 2014 at 4:54 pm

              The rule that applies is called contra preferentum.

              Translators were used. Usually missionaries. In common law when there is a dispute as to what an agreement means and language is at issue … the courts rule against the interpretation of the party who wrote the agreement. Having written it they had the best opportunity to make the meaning crystal clear.

              My understanding is that until about 1860 the legal status of the treaty wasnt questioned. It was only when the pressure to take land illegitimately that this suddenly changed.

              Nz was first colony to have a treaty and not conquered or ceded.

    • karol 4.2
      5 February 2014 at 11:37 am

      I think that National governments often picked up on agitations from the grass roots and legislated on them. They have often been related to causes previously supported by Labour.

      By the time Muldoon gained power in 1975, there had been a lot of flax roots Maori agitation and campaigning. The Treaty related legislation was indicative of a national shift in attitude, and sought as much to contain the protests from Tanagata Whenua as to further their cause.

      This history on Te Ara shows that Waitangi Day was first made a public holiday by the Labour government. Muldoon came to power in 1975, and it was under his watch that the Waitangi tribunal was established. But this was the culmination of a lot of previous agitation and work on the issue.

      Useful timeline here.

      Basically there has been an on-going struggle since British occupation, and changes in legislation didn’t really lead the progress for tangata whenua.

      • Bill 4.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 12:41 pm

        Legislation can be a nice way to co-opt elements of movements/protest etc, and usher in a situation of divided and ruled, no?

        • karol 4.2.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 1:10 pm

          Legislation on things like Waitangi does show some progress as the result of long term campaigning. But the legislation is always going to be on the conservative side – a negotiation that ends up with something a lot of the dominant groups can feel reasonably comfortable with.

          And than the conservatives can claim the progressives have got these improvements, what more do they need? So the result can be a co-option or containment of the protest in ways that don’t threaten the dominant groups too much.

        • karol 4.2.1.2
          6 February 2014 at 8:41 am

          And on that theme, interesting article in the NZ Herald by Hone Harawira, on how the Waitangi Tribunal contravenes the intention of the Treaty – attempting to reach a point of ending the significance of the Treaty by reaching “full and final” settlements, after which no further claims can be made. He says that the Waitangi Tribunal is stacked in favour of the government and against Maori. Ngaphuhi’s settlement in process could make a stand against this.

          And as fate would have it, Ngapuhi’s place in the whole Treaty saga is about to come full circle for, just as Ngapuhi was the birthplace of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, so too does Ngapuhi provide the basis for our future understanding of Te Tiriti.

          The Government already has “full and final” deals with most other iwi, and in particular the big players like Tainui, Ngai Tahu and Ngati Porou, but they can’t effectively claim to have settled the Treaty until they can bring the biggest tribe in the country to the table.

          Once Ngapuhi’s signature is on the Deed of Settlement, the Crown will have achieved “full and final” settlement of all major iwi claims, at which point the Treaty will have finally achieved the status conferred upon it by Chief Justice Prendergast in 1877 … it will to all intents and purposes finally be “null and void”.

          And I doubt that any of our tupuna who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi back in 1840 would have even contemplated let alone agreed to either scenario.

      • alwyn 4.2.2
        5 February 2014 at 1:10 pm

        “Muldoon came to power in 1975, and it was under his watch that the Waitangi tribunal was established”.
        The Tribunal was established on 10 October, 1975 under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
        The election that saw Muldoon take power was not until 29 November, 1975 so it was actually established under the Rowling Governent.

        Incidentally the national holiday established by the Labour Government was called New Zealand Day, not Waitangi Day. The Muldoon Government reverted to the name Waitangi Day in 1976.

  5. weka 5
    5 February 2014 at 11:27 am

    That bingo card makes me want to weep. I was born in the mid-60s and from this white girl perspective much has changed. And yet here we still are. Kia ora Morgan for the post.

  6. Rosie 6
    5 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

    I loved the bingo card. Summed up every tragic stereotyped response to Waitangi Day we’ve ever heard and will hear yet again this year.

    I really enjoyed the post by Morgan Godfrey so thank you for posting it karol. What zoomed out at me was “There could never be unity without equality”, in regard to the NZ Day Act of 1973. The way I hear it “No Unity Without Equality” underpins everything that holds us back from existing as a cohesive society, culturally, socially and economically.

    Huge big ups to Rachael Smalley. Extraordinary to see someone employed by the MSM calling out the MSM on biased and manufactured reporting. Nice touch that she added how much she enjoyed the day last year and how welcome she was made to feel.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1
      5 February 2014 at 12:31 pm

      + 1 Rosie

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2
      5 February 2014 at 12:45 pm

      Smalley makes a valid point, but how is she going to follow through? Racist reporting happens 24/7, not just on Waitangi Day.

      • Rosie 6.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 1:49 pm

        Good question Knuckles. She is only one person swimming against the tide with one article. But credit due because with a piece like that she has made a ripple that hopefully makes her colleagues sit up and take notice.

        And 24/7 racist reporting, as you mention above. The MSM need to confront this ingrained ugliness – they perpetuate and normalise prejudice via their biased reporting.

        I recall an article on scoop a few years ago that published the findings of a study into media racism in NZ. It’s a while ago and I don’t have the data but I wasn’t surprised to discover that Non Maori TV chanels portrayed Maori in a poor light by singling them out in crime reporting, repetitive reporting of negative events and under reporting of positive events and achievements.

        I haven’t watched Maori TV for awhile but used to watch it all the time before I cut down my TV viewing consumption time and it was clear that MSM was not getting the true story or full story across, when you would compare the same news story on Maori TV and say, TV3. Te Urewera raids were a very sad and shameful example of biased reporting, in the MSM, newspapers and TV that is.

        Folks may have read “Terror in our Midst? :Searching for terror in Aotearoa New Zealand” edited by Danny Keenan if they haven’t I would recommend it. One aspect of misinformation they cover is media reporting. It’s a powerful book. Had me in tears, both of sorrow and anger.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.1.1
          5 February 2014 at 2:16 pm

          Raema Merchant’s report was on my mind when I made the comment. Her research points “to a 42 percent over-reporting of Māori physical child abuse than would be statistically expected.”

          “In the eight-year sample of newspapers I did not see any reference to an abused child specifically identified as Pākehā or European…”, despite the fact that they account for more than 50% of cases.

          • Rosie 6.2.1.1.1
            5 February 2014 at 3:43 pm

            “In the eight-year sample of newspapers I did not see any reference to an abused child specifically identified as Pākehā or European…”, despite the fact that they account for more than 50% of cases.”

            Ethnically and culturally identified child abuse is just so, well there’s so many words, but I would say unnecessary and I always wonder what the purpose is in stating a child victim’s culture or ethnicity. Once again it just compounds untrue stereotypes and creates a platform where one group can feel superior because they are not identified as abusers.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.1.1.1.1
              5 February 2014 at 3:54 pm

              As I am fond of asking “what does ethnicity have to do with it?”

              PS: Ethnicity is an issue, but only that it indicates the level of prejudice to which an individual will be exposed, and then only insofar as mainstream National Party opinions are tolerated.

              • weka …
                5 February 2014 at 6:51 pm

                I think there’s more to it than that. Colonisation affects different ethnicities in different ways. The problem is less that ethnicity issues are identified than that Pakeha refuse to look at their own ethnicity and the reasons for why they might be doing what they are doing. Which is why most Pakeha struggle when they hear that Maori had far less rates of child abuse at the time of colonisation whereas the Brits had child abuse as a norm. What are the cultural reasons for Pakeha to abuse their kids?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  5 February 2014 at 7:34 pm

                  Pakeha refuse to look at their own ethnicity [citation needed]. I suspect you are not the only exception to the rule.

                  There are no “cultural” “reasons” for people to abuse children. Period.

                  Rotherham’s gettin’ dog rough these days.

                  • weka …
                    5 February 2014 at 8:51 pm

                    I was meaning Pakeha as a class.

                    You don’t think that there is a link between being abused and becoming an abuser?

                    • QoT …
                      5 February 2014 at 11:51 pm

                      It’s actually a pretty harmful meme, not based in reality, that abused people become abusers themselves. There are usually other factors at work.
                      http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030206/do-sexually-abused-kids-become-abusers

                      It’s harmful because it propagates the idea that victims/survivors of abuse are “damaged”, which often pressures them not to speak out about the abuse that has been done to them.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 11:26 am

                      I didn’t say abused people become abusers – obviously many many don’t. I said there is a connection. I think of it the other way round – that people who abuse had certain conditions that contributed to that. People in those situations/conditions manage in lots of different ways, some within their control, alot outside of their control.

                      btw, I think your link supports what I was getting to. Violent environments create intergenerational problems which entrench in culture. I would also define the broader violent environment described in that article as ‘abuse’, not just the individual specific acts.

                      OAB said that culture has nothing to do with it. I’m curious then how to explain the differences in child abuse between Maori and British at the time of contact. Perhaps what he means is that ethincity has nothing to do with it (the warrior gene bullshit).

                      “It’s harmful because it propagates the idea that victims/survivors of abuse are “damaged”, which often pressures them not to speak out about the abuse that has been done to them.”

                      Bearing in mind that I don’t believe the ‘abused become abusers’ meme, there is no doubt that damage gets done. But the problem becomes when society determines that the person is a damaged being, as if the person is what happened to them. ACC’s attempt to define sexual abuse survivors as mentally ill is the extreme example of that (and is a form of compounding abuse).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:20 pm

                      The Spirit Level ties violence and other harmful outcomes explicitly to inequality. Any culture is therefore susceptible.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 11:44 pm

                      Makes sense, but I think it’s simplistic to then say that culture has nothing to do with abuse/violence or vice versa, esp as I’m struggling to think of any culture that is free or inequality.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2014 at 7:53 am

                      Well, I guess you could say it’s down to the prevailing economic culture.

                      I can certainly think of some appropriate cultural exchanges I could have with our prevailing economic theorists.

  7. blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7
    5 February 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Here is a link to an excellent article about racism by Paul C Gorski, which supplies a comprehensive discussion of the factors involved in racism – including clear definitions – and also suggests how to deal with it. ( It is long – yet is very interesting and well written and therefore easy to read.)

    It fairly well proves that the comments we read in our media (that would make filling out ‘the bingo card’ a very quick exercise) are misinformed fallacies that only serve to confuse us all on what racism is.

    [I have also provided this link in today’s Open Mike ]

    • Rosie 7.1
      5 February 2014 at 3:44 pm

      Whoah, that it lengthy! One to print our and read on the couch. Thanks the link Blue Leopard, it looks like good reading.

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 5:19 pm

        lolz yes, that is what I did -(printed it out) and well worth it too!

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.1.2
        6 February 2014 at 11:16 am

        Correction: The article was written by Caleb Rosado.
        My apologies for such a profound error.

    • just saying 7.2
      5 February 2014 at 6:44 pm

      Many thanks Blue Leopard. Wise words.
      Wish it was read widely, especially on Waitangi day

      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 7.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 8:15 pm

        Ah glad someone enjoyed it – yes it is the type of thing I wish was read widely too.

  8. Tracey 8
    5 February 2014 at 4:57 pm

    Anyone else notice the double meaning or back_handed compliment in this quote from key today?

    “We have done plenty of things we wouldn’t without the Maori Party,” Key said.

  9. fisiani 9
    5 February 2014 at 6:10 pm

    As the nation gears up for Waitangi Day tomorrow, I’ll be reflecting on Treaty settlement progress by the National led government. In only 5 years, National has nearly double the number of results compared to 9 long years under Labour. National also repealed the appalling Foreshore & Seabed legislation introduced by Labour that marginalized Maori rights. There has also been much more significant progress for Maori in areas like Health and Education recently. Maori are much better off under a National led government.
    As the nation gears up for Waitangi Day tomorrow, I’ll be reflecting on Treaty settlement progress by the National led government. In only 5 years, National has nearly double the number of results compared to 9 long years under Labour. National also repealed the appalling Foreshore & Seabed legislation introduced by Labour that marginalized Maori rights. There has also been much more significant progress for Maori in areas like Health and Education recently. Maori are much better off under a National led government.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      5 February 2014 at 6:27 pm

      National has done a good job of progressing Treaty settlements, that’s true.

      Of course, brown skinned people are still totally screwed in the low wage underemploying economy National has created.

    • karol 9.2
      5 February 2014 at 7:21 pm

      Good for the Nact government for keeping the processes of Waitangi Tribunal settlements going. But many of them were started under the Labour led government.

      Clark set a deadline for submissions of historic claims for Sept 2008. As far as I can see Nats have settled about the same amount of claims as the last Labour government. But many of the ones the Nats settled would have been begun under the Clark government. Also, some of the hold up in the past has been due to negative National Party attitudes, but generally attitudes have softened in NZ in recent times according to Chris Finlayson.

      Not such good news for Maori on economic factors under the NActs – as on Stats NZ website 2009-2013.

      Proportion of unemployment for most groups increased under the NActs – more so for Maori than for Europeans – Pacific people have had the biggest increase in measured unemployment – doesn’t count all those missing from the stats.

      Similar story for median hourly earnings – some increase, from 2009-2012, but less for Maori. Progress stopped and went backwards for Maori in 2013.

      Employment rate – fairly stable for Europeans – continual slow decling for Maori.

  10. Pasupial 10
    5 February 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Wow! Didn’t expect this:

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Historic-day-as-women-speak-on-marae-at-Waitangi/tabid/1607/articleID/331116/Default.aspx

    That’s some serious mana for Turei – and Sykes too of course. Does anyone know where to find a transcript of the speech?

    • karol 10.1
      5 February 2014 at 7:25 pm

      Turei’s speech.

      This is an historic opportunity for me, as a Māori woman and political leader and for the Green Party, the most consistent voice in parliament for the interests of Maori over the past 15 years.

      Getting our kids out of poverty; protecting the moana from deep sea oil drilling; warm healthy homes for every whānau; honouring te tiriti o waitangi; this is the Green kaupapa, my kaupapa.

      And it’s urgent. For every day that goes by more of our kids are being robbed of their future.

      A bold claim re the Greens and Maori – but maybe the key word is “consistent”.

      • marty mars 10.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 9:18 pm

        Awesome! – for Annette, for Mana, for Metiria, and for The Greens. This bodes very well for the upcoming election imo because these voices must be heard by rangatahi and the mana shown by speaking illustrates the mana able to influence and offer hope and solutions for young Māori.

  11. xtasy 11
    5 February 2014 at 7:28 pm

    “The layers of meaning are clear: Waitangi Day belongs to monocultural nationhood, not multicultural pluralism. Sit down or shut up. That disrespects Maori realities. But it also misunderstands the Treaty itself: the Treaty didn’t create New Zealand – that came later – the Treaty created a bicultural relationship.”

    Wow, yes, what has become of all that treaty talk, I ask?

    Where does this also leave many newer migrants (Asians and others), and how does modern day migration policy meet the treaty commitments? What input have Tangata Whenua on migration policy to their country?

    We are now having a society where Maori are becoming the 3rd or 4th largest “ethnic” group in their own country, and it shows, that no matter what talk about sorting out past injustices, and more, the Anglo Saxon post colonial culture is running the country, which is on commercial and corporate terms, and the governments over recent times have just applied more “divide and rule” policies, ensuring that nobody has too much clout to enforce any rights.

    The Treaty is in reality becoming increasingly irrelevant in practice, and I see this every day. It is just more about “talk” than action and responsibility. It is a “token gesture”, that is what Waitangi means today. While this is not right, where are the ones that should fight for maintaining it? I think it is time for another Maori resurgence, to claim their rights and roles, but at the same time, the people that feel and are Maori, must also take responsibility, to take charge, to not let corporate few interests corrupt their collective interests, and let so many down.

    The “settlements” of the last years has only served some, and it let most Maori down, left them disconnected and NOT benefiting at all. Most that have no jobs still represent a high number of beneficiaries, depending on WINZ.

    I have raised issues re this before, and have got a lot of criticism from Maori and Pakeha, but also support. I challenge New Zealanders to reflect on “Te Tiriti”, and what it means historically, and what it should mean today. A country that in majority just considers this as a “day off”, for “BBQs”, picnics and so forth, that has lost the plot! Well, honestly, I feel most New Zealanders never got a proper grip of what history means, and what THEIR history means or should mean.

    It is time to honour the Treaty!

  12. Meg 12
    5 February 2014 at 8:05 pm

    Frankly I find Waitangi Day a total waste of time, bar getting the day off work. It is meaningless to so many, and should be dumped in favour of a New Zealand day at a different point in the year the actually celebrates a multi cultural country, not this false bi culture nonsense that is rammed down our throats.

    • karol 12.1
      5 February 2014 at 8:13 pm

      If people find it meaningless they have no understanding of this country’s history. It’s a shame more people don’t take the time to learn about it, and understand its impact and legacy today.

      How is this “rammed down our throats” any more than ANZAC Day? Or Christmas? Or Easter?

      • xtasy 12.1.1
        5 February 2014 at 10:37 pm

        karol it is MEANINGLESS, as the country has been divided beyond belief. You better wake up to reality, as you belong to an admittedly “good believing” crowd, that is also becoming totally irrelevant in real political terms. We live in a COLD, HARD and SELFISH society, and there is no visible return to a HUMANE society, Sorry, I see it that way and am signing off, as there is NO HOPE for this country and society anymore, but a FIGHT for justice, with BLOOD!

        • bad12 12.1.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 9:22 am

          Commandante El Xtasy has spoken, with blood even, pffft, when does the revolution begin is the question on everyone’s lips..

          • srylands 12.1.1.1.1
            6 February 2014 at 11:47 am

            “when does the revolution begin is the question on everyone’s lips..

            Don’t think so. The shops are heaving, the eating establishments are full, boat sales are up, New Zealand leads the world in confidence and happiness ratings.

            No the “revolution” is really not on the lips of many at all.

      • Chooky 12.1.2
        6 February 2014 at 1:10 pm

        +100 karol

        the Treaty of Waitangi is very important as a founding document to New Zealanders….many of whom are of both Maori and Pakeha blood….sure it isnt perfect…. sure it has been betrayed at times…but it is honoured and it must continue to be honoured and past injustices continue to be redressed …( Australian Aborigine wish that they had had such a Treaty)

        …. as a descendent of a Chief who did sign it ……it annoys me when new immigrants dis it ….especially when they come here for a new and better life and are escaping countries whose records in human rights ,sexism, racism and oppression of minorities are absolutely abysmal

        ….i think there is a certain amount of envy there that they do not have a long heritage as New Zealanders ( ie they dont feel real New Zealanders)and they resent the Maori, a proud and talented people, have special status as the tangata whenua

        ….well there is one solution to this ….if you dont like it …..go back to where you came from

  13. Meg 13
    5 February 2014 at 8:18 pm

    I know our country’s history, I know that the TOW was broken by both sides, and I know that a culture who live as victims has no future. Time to move on and dump this nonsense where it belongs. In the past.

    • karol 13.1
      5 February 2014 at 8:25 pm

      The past is always with us. We are lost if we don’t know are history. I’m also interested in my own family and cultural history. I’m interested in knowing how that relates to the histories of the indigenous people of this country.

      Maori don’t “live as victims”. Most have pride in and respect for their culture. They continue to register highly in the inequality stats because of the legacy of colonisation. That is not their fault.

      You’re hammering the “Hostility” square in the Waitangi Day bingo board.

      PS: You haven’t answered my questions about Anzac Day, Christmas, etc.

  14. Meg 14
    5 February 2014 at 9:21 pm

    Many iwi are living as victims, treaty settlements anyone. The English pinched my ancestral land too, but that’s conquest for ya. Time to move on. Oh and as for pride in their culture, I would disagree with that given the Maori language is boarding on endangered again, and how many know their family history? Visit their local marae? Some do, but I am willing to bet most do not.

    Also, Maori are no more indigenous to NZ than anyone else. Hell they were not even the first ones here, so let’s not rewrite history anymore than it has been.

    As for Easter and Christmas, the REAL meaning of those two holidays are not pushed down our throats in the slightest. We have the money making side of it forced on us, and I can tell you I was rather annoyed to see hot cross buns in the supermarkets in bloody January, as I am when October rocks round and there are Christmas decorations in the stores. Totally not on.

    So I say dump this worthless Waitangi Day, leave Christmas in December and Easter in April/May and move on into the 21st century and stop this separatist nonsense.

    • karol 14.1
      5 February 2014 at 9:44 pm

      Moriori! Bingo!

      Ah, have had an interest in my Scottish ancestry – it’s important to know the culture and history around things like the Highland clearance and English conquest, and how it impacts on the present day in the UK. Others in my ancestry were conquerors and colonisers of someone else’s land. All that is important to know and understand.

      Yes, I too don’t like the commercialisation of Christmas, or Easter. Nevertheless, there’s still a strong element of the Christian Christmas message in the way Christmas is cek=lebrated.

      You haven’t answered about Anzac Day.

      And given most of NZ’s mainstream media misrepresents, or ignores Maori history and the impacts of colonisation and the ethnic stratification it enforced, I don’t agree the real meaning and history of Wiatangi Day has endlessly been forced upon us.

      Waitangi Day – it has at its heart a treaty between two people.
      It is not separatist. All people are welcome at the Waitangi Day events and commemorations. It does involve showing respect for Maori culture and it’s history of colonisation – the impacts live on today.

      Already this week I have learned some things about the history of Waitangi – the moko signatures for instance. I have looked again at how it has disadvantaged large numbers of Maori today.

      What is so wrong with learning more about/from, by engaging with, other people who inhabit these islands?

  15. Meg 15
    5 February 2014 at 9:57 pm

    Nothing wrong with learning about it, but let’s leave it at that. And given a vast majority of nz will take no part in anything to do with WD beyond not being at work, I think you have your rose tinted glasses on too tight.

    Also if you think ccommercialisation is part of the Christian message, then you don’t know the Christian message.

    And I’m sorry but harping on about colonisation being the cause of social ills is pure nonsense. This is the 21st century, if your life is bad because of something tht happened 200 odd years ago then you are the problem, not history. As I said my family lost lands, were driven out of Eire by Cromwell, scattered across Europe, and yet I’m doing just fine. Colonisation is an excuse used when people do not want to face the real causes of their problems.

    As for ANZAC day, that is a different thing altogether. ALL of nz came together to defend our country- as one people. Perhaps that should be our national day.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:01 pm

      Argumentum ad individuum est ubiquitum?

    • karol 15.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:09 pm

      Hey – I never said anything about the Christian message including commercialisation.

      It’s a shame you have so little understanding or interest in the real history of our nation, and its impacts on the present.

      Colonisation never ended. How did the Anzacs defend our country? I thought they joined together to go to someone else’s war?

      Waitangi and colonisation happened here, and was the founding document for our nation – for all of us.

    • QoT 15.3
      5 February 2014 at 11:56 pm

      Hey Meg, you haven’t read the rules of Waitangi (WhiteAngry) Day Bingo properly. You can’t win if you’re the one ticking every box, you know.
      http://i.imgur.com/PO3CkyN.jpg

    • bad12 15.4
      6 February 2014 at 9:27 am

      Excuse me Meg for asking, but isn’t yours the argument of someone with a selective education in history, sociology, with a huge fucking amount of mental disease thrown into the mix,

      My suggestion, seek help…

      • srylands 15.4.1
        6 February 2014 at 11:44 am

        “with a huge fucking amount of mental disease thrown into the mix,”

        Do you actually go through life talking to people like this who happen to disagree with what you say?

        It is an indictment on your character and explains your situation.

        • bad12 15.4.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 1:32 pm

          Nah, i save it for the likes of you and Meg, SSLands, the pair of you in my opinion are far from having the full set and your very presence here with your continually disproved ‘wing-nut’ whining is enough proof for most of the assertion,

          Ha ha ha ha, SSLands don’t pretend to know what my situation is you clown, and, ‘my situation’ is probably on a par with yours,(which must be a huge ongoing incentive to have whatever reeks havoc in your cranial cavity to become further inflamed),

          i could almost pity you SSLands, as you slave away with your abacus in your wee alcove counting other peoples money for that little firm of tax lawyers like a convict sentenced to life with hard labour,

          However, given your poisonous nature, your particular prison and graft are well deserved and the next fine day i am rowing my waka around the waterfront of Whanga-nui-a-Tara i might be tempted to wish you well, free-person to indentured slave of your own making,(my magnanimous nature doesn’t stretch that far and i will probably think of you in terms of the tool you are being given the kick when the masters require a younger version at which point you will come to the sudden realization that your whole life has been a pointless waste),

          At that point you will simply become a walking corpse…

      • Meg 15.4.2
        6 February 2014 at 1:13 pm

        Typical response from a separatist.

  16. Meg 16
    5 February 2014 at 10:18 pm

    No it was not our founding document. It was a contract both sides broke shortly after it was signed, and remember many tribes never signed. So how could it be a founding document if a large section of Maori were never part of it?

    I understand and know a lot about Nz’s history, but because I do not accept the “white man must have guilt” line and dare to suggest Maori take ownership of their problems and stop blaming others, you prefer to suggest otherwise.

    It is very typical when you dare to speak against anything that does not fit with the victim spin of nz history.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 16.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:56 pm

      “white man must have guilt”

      In my 50 odd years the only people who have ever used this line to me have been white. Why is that?

      It’s interesting when you are a white male what people (mainly white) say to you when seeking and assuming mutual agreement and then even more interesting when you disagree with them and point out they are simply being racist or sexist.

      Maori understand quite clearly the treaty was between them and the Crown – not between Maori and you or me. They understand quite clearly that the weight of the Crown was used to take land, imprison people without trial, to confiscate. They understand that this is very well documented both orally and in many many cases in court judgement and legislative debate. They understand the ability of the legal system to give some redress.

      The Crown understands this as well and moreso most political parties understand that resolving these issues via legal processes is a good solution.

      Maori aren’t asking for a lot. We should appreciate their generosity in predominantly wanting their land and resources along with minimal amounts of financial compensation.

      Keep some perspective – all of the Treaty Settlements since the first come to less than what was paid to bail out South Canterbury Finance investors. Treaty settlements may overtake at some point but time will tell.

      You should be proud of the fact that we have a (successive) government(s) willing to take these steps and a Maori population who place far less financial value on the land than Europeans who think land is only worth the $value it can bring.

      You should also be proud that Waitangi Day is a great day for demonstrating our democratic right to protest. Long may that right continue.

      The only one playing victim is yourself and your perspective simply is racist.

      You’ll note too from the census data that we are becoming less religious – and more diverse in religion. I’ll look forward to your calls now to tell Christmas and Easter to fuck off, to the Crown to stop funding religious schools and let them close and to support recent calls to get the religous instruction that BOT’s have allowed right out of state schools.

    • QoT 16.2
      5 February 2014 at 11:58 pm

      Yes, how very dare we white people feel a little awkward about building a nation based on stealing other people’s land and trying our damnedest to eliminate their language and culture. 🙄

    • Murray Olsen 16.3
      6 February 2014 at 2:05 am

      What a load of shit. This pakeha has optimism, not guilt. It is my optimism that we are in a position to build something that has no equal on the planet that stems from my acknowledgment of the treaty. It is your racism that makes you believe that Maori were not the first people to set foot in Aotearoa. If you’re talking about Moriori, it could at least be an honest mistake, but I suspect you’re actually wanking on about ancient Celts or some such rubbish.

    • PapaMike 16.4
      6 February 2014 at 1:13 pm

      Meg – your comments are very pertinent.

      Today we hear that Ngapuhi cannot get enough like minded of their people to form a committee to discuss or agree their settlement of $600,000,000.
      Government are bending over backwards to get these discussions under way.
      It is disappointing that the argument effectively is between who will get to control this money from this and who will not.

  17. Granted 17
    5 February 2014 at 10:20 pm

    It would be great if it were celebrated in a more positive manner. I am not a fan of the day being used as a platform to protest things such as the hikoi that is underway. Why cant we celebrate what has been achieved on waitangi day rather than focus on the negative?

  18. Granted 18
    5 February 2014 at 10:20 pm

    It would be great if it were celebrated in a more positive manner. I am not a fan of the day being used as a platform to protest things such as the hikoi that is underway. Why cant we celebrate what has been achieved on waitangi day rather than focus on the negative?

    • karol 18.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:36 pm

      Why do you want to deny the bad things that have happened? Did you read Morgan Godfery’s post about the significance of protest on Waitangi Day?

      And why do you think there isn’t a positive commemoration going on as well? Didi you read Rachel Smalley’s account of her experience of last Waitangi Day. You shouldn’t go by the MSM’s version of what happens on Waitangi Day. Try going to a Waitangi event.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:45 pm

      I’m a fan of the day being used as a vehicle for people “kicking” racism/sexism/exploitation. How are we supposed to rise above National Party standards otherwise?

  19. Meg 19
    5 February 2014 at 10:24 pm

    We will never be able to celebrate New Zealand until we move away from Waitangi Day. Far too much negative baggage.

    • Pasupial 19.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:32 pm

      Meg

      Is this some kind of bizarre comedy routine in which you are systematically trying to tick every box in Godfery’s bingo card of racism?
      Did you even read the links in the post on which you are commenting?

    • Pasupial 19.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:33 pm

      Meg

      Is this some kind of bizarre comedy routine in which you are systematically trying to tick every box in Godfery’s bingo card of racism?

      Did you even read the links in the post on which you are commenting?

    • karol 19.3
      5 February 2014 at 10:33 pm

      The negative baggage won’t go away until it is confronted and engaged with honestly.

      You didn’t read Morgan Godfery’s post then? I find talking to and reading what Maori have to say about Waitangi Day is very helpful.

      And we aren’t talking about things happening back as far as Cromwell’s time – Maori living today will talk about how the lack of honouring of the Treay impacted on their lives and culture – how it was never mentioned in schools – how they were stopped from speaking Maori in schools…. etc. It’s only recently that it’s been brought more to people’s attention.

  20. Meg 20
    5 February 2014 at 10:37 pm

    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to cry racist.

    The fall back position to endure no one dare question he status quo position.

    • Pasupial 20.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Yeh well, when you spout racist bullshit, then you’re likely to be called out on it. Though I think you meant to type;”ensure”, it’s us who has to do the enduring.

      [BTW Karol – I doubled up while caught in the glitch zone, could you please delete 18.2; as apart from one line space it’s just verbatum 18.1]

      • Meg 20.1.1
        6 February 2014 at 1:18 pm

        Pity for you it’s not racist. But people like you will cry otherwise because that is your only defence for your separatist position.

  21. Pasupial 21
    5 February 2014 at 10:40 pm

    This is a very timely series of brief videos from the Human Rights Commission. Iwi leaders reading the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (in both Te Reo and English):

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1402/S00089/human-rights-of-indigenous-people-in-the-video-spotlight.htm

  22. Meg 22
    5 February 2014 at 10:42 pm

    Here is a bit of honesty then to confront: too many Maori abuse their kids. To blame it on anything else but those that abuse is disgusting and changes nothing go dislodge the embedded victim mentality.

    All this fluff around colinisation being the cause of all ills, or oh he treaty was broken, is pure theater. Many many Maori do as well as anyone. Those that do not, do not for the same reasons other cultures don’t – their personal choices.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 22.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:50 pm

      What does ethnicity have to do with it?

    • marty mars 22.2
      5 February 2014 at 11:15 pm

      Meg I think you have some big issues that I suggest you just put out there instead of beating around the bush like this – come on lay it all out, be proud of your views.

      For me you just seem silly and not very comfortable with yourself (sort of like being stuck at a party with a pissed john ansell rabbiting on) but hey that’s just my view.

    • Murray Olsen 22.3
      6 February 2014 at 2:11 am

      Is colinisation what happens if the Conservatives win a seat?

  23. Meg 23
    5 February 2014 at 10:43 pm

    Maori are not indigenous.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1
      5 February 2014 at 10:52 pm

      That’s an interesting perspective. Is it based on ignorance, mendacity, or prejudice, because those are the only options supported by the evidence.

    • Pasupial 23.2
      5 February 2014 at 10:58 pm

      Meg

      Could you at least learn how to use the reply button?

      I get that your spelling may be off due to keyboard slipperiness; what with the flecks of spittle raining down upon it. But “colinisation”? We’re ill because we’ve had our names changed to Colin? It’s “colonisation”; like a brutal anal rape that reaches all the way through the rectal passage into the colon.

  24. Meg 24
    5 February 2014 at 10:56 pm

    No, it’s based on the fact they are not. They did not originate in nz, they were not the first here, and from a historical point of view were not here that long before Europeans turned up.

    But again, to suggest that Maori are anything other than a special group with special rights seperate from the rest of nz, gets one attacked by those protecting the Maori victimisation version.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 24.1
      5 February 2014 at 11:01 pm

      I’d like to cut your truthiness down a bit if that’s ok with you. You seem to be whining like a cry-baby over property rights, or have I misunderestimated the depths to which you will disgrace our proud European heritage?

    • QoT 24.2
      6 February 2014 at 12:01 am

      No one “originated” anywhere except Africa. How about you try using the same definitions of “indigenous” the rest of the world do?

      *prays for a “Celts were here first” comment further downthread*

      • Psycho Milt 24.2.1
        6 February 2014 at 9:04 am

        You beat me to it. By Meg’s logic, apart from in one small part of Africa, whereabouts unknown, there’s no such thing as “indigenous” people.

    • PapaMike 24.3
      6 February 2014 at 1:17 pm

      It has been established that Maori DNA is from current tribes in South East Taiwan, and who came to New Zealand via the Pacific Islands – Cook Islands have been similarly identifies as a sort of staging point.

  25. Meg 25
    5 February 2014 at 11:13 pm

    Typical response from those pushing the “poor Maori it’s all the bad white mans fault” line.

    I am saying we are all equal, Waitangi Day is meaningless to most kiwis, except for the day off, and it is time to leave the past in the past.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.1
      5 February 2014 at 11:16 pm

      Property rights. Or can I (or my lawyers – and their employees and contractors) just take your stuff because I’m stronger than you, little dog?

    • marty mars 25.2
      5 February 2014 at 11:20 pm

      ummm why don’t you start doing that then – you know walk the talk. Have you got that reply button sussed yet – bottom right (get the pun) of the comment.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 25.3
      5 February 2014 at 11:28 pm

      Typical response from those pushing the “poor Maori it’s all the bad white mans fault” line.

      I assume that’s your headline for your next statement. The ONLY person pushing that line is you.

      Your next statement too is typical of all the whities who push that line. Of course they are all usually quite racist to boot.

    • QoT 25.4
      6 February 2014 at 12:02 am

      It may help readers to understand that Meg is using the word “kiwis” to refer to Pakeha New Zealanders, the way most racist talkback guests do.

      • Meg 25.4.1
        6 February 2014 at 12:29 pm

        Wrong. But nice try at using your separatist mentality to tell lies.

        • karol 25.4.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 12:37 pm

          Meg, where is your humanity? All I see from you is hate and denial of life-damaging inequalities in NZ. The differences exist as a legacy of colonialism and continuing attempts to destroy the culture and lives of the first people’s in Aotearoa. That’s not separatism. That’s the basis of a respectful dialogue between people.

          So much venom. So little caring for the lives and sufferings of others.

          So much prejudice. So little interest in a genuine dialogue between peoples.

          A hit on the Bingo Board every time.

          • Meg 25.4.1.1.1
            6 February 2014 at 12:58 pm

            Ahh how nice, the typical name calling from those supporting the poor Maori position.

            There are inequalities no doubt. But to claim that a child is beaten because of the treaty not being honoured, or a job not given, or drugs grown, or drowning in booze all links back go the treaty nog being honoured is pathetic. As I said last night many many Maori are successful, hard working decent people. The blame he evil white man line is a cop out for real issues that are being ignored.

            • marty mars 25.4.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2014 at 1:12 pm

              You are the only one talking about evil white men meg, funny that eh? Want to front up with the truth yet or are you going to bullshit on like this all day.

            • karol 25.4.1.1.1.2
              6 February 2014 at 1:20 pm

              Meg, the viral-bot, I didn’t mention child abuse. I mentioned inequalities. You should stop taking the MSM as gospel – they like to mostly show child abuse when it involves brown people. Far more child abuse amongst non-Maori than the MSM ever reports.

              You are the only one associating Maori and inequalities with drugs and alcohol abuse.

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 1:23 pm

                Wrong again.

                I am saying yo use the treaty as an excuse for these things as many of your lot do, is not on. I also think you might be a big of a conspiracy person with all this anti msm talk.

                • karol …
                  6 February 2014 at 1:34 pm

                  Meg, all you’ve got is anger and misinformation. All you show is how far we have to go before the Treaty is truly honoured.

                  More rope….?

                  My lot? Interesting.

                  There’s plenty of sound and reliable research showing how the MSM is slanted against Maori.

                  It’s not something carefully orchestrated, so is not a conspiracy.

                  It’s the outcome of deep seated attitudes of Pakeha superiority.

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 1:35 pm

                    How cute and typical. Blaming others.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:41 pm

                      How tiresome and cretinous, rudely twisting perfectly polite responses to your angry mess.

                      What are you? A political message from the National Party?

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:44 pm

                      Actually I am a life long labour voter.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:50 pm

                      Wow, who’d have thought Shane Jones had company? The two of you should start a witless bigot youth wing.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:53 pm

                      Nice to see you playing to your type.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:22 pm

                      Meg, sorry this is the last reply button in this trail, my question relates to a point further on.
                      You say you have no respect for Maori culture.

                      “Maori culture is no more special than any other culture in nz.”

                      So when you or I go overseas, should we turn a “blind eye” to other people’s culture, other people’s history, other people’s desires, their wants, their needs?
                      Should we simply ignore everything we either don’t know or don’t understand ?

                      If you agree that we should, just as we should ignore similar Maori claims here, then we’d have stood aside and allowed Hitler to carry on with his genocide in WWII. The same can be made of a number of similar claims elsewhere.

                      If that’s the case, and you do agree, then Meg, regardless of which ever Party you vote for, you are one sad individual.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:28 pm

                      Goodness such an outright bald face lie will.

                      I never said I do not have respect for Maori culture, I said it was no more special than anyone else’s in nz.

                      Not that I am silly enough to expect you will apologise for such a lie, nor do I expect you you grasp how stupid your hitler link is (Godwin’s law) but it would be grown up of you to withdraw and apologise.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:38 pm

                      This culture, that you pay lip service to, while saying that everyone needs to “move on”. That’s a gesture of disrespect right there. Not to mention a truly epic oxymoron.

                      Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:42 pm

                      Who says I’m paying any service to it? It’s not my culture, I respect that it is others and they can do as they please in line with their cultural beliefs, but I don’t practice any part of it.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:51 pm

                      They can do as they please in line with their cultural beliefs…

                      …dump this nonsense in the past…

                      And there we are: the proof, if any further were needed that Meg’s “opinion” is self-contradictory, ill-thought through gibberish which serves as little but a vehicle for bile and prejudice.

                      Empty head, empty words.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:00 pm

                      Seems like whatever “culture” you think you have Meg, it clearly hasn’t informed you on how to deal with those people from others.

                      Which is odd, since the essence of culture is being able to relate to others.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:39 pm

                      “Maori culture is no more special than any other culture in nz.”
                      Okay Meg, what defines us as a people – Pakeha/Palangi culture or Maoritanga ?
                      The same when you go overseas – it is the culture of the people that defines a nation.
                      To say that Maori is no more special than any other culture in nz, is to ignore that culture, to ignore it’s relevance. Pakeha culture tried to dominate Maoridom, it didn’t work.
                      Therefore to ignore Maori culture is to disrespect it Meg, pure and simple.

                      What do you think the Maori Wars were about – annihilation. Pakeha never imagined that Maori could invent trench warfare, with a certain amount of subterfuge. The English were about to embark on genocide as they did elsewhere. They sent overwhelming odds of troops to “sack” villages, often only to find that the inhabitants had disappeared.

                      Interesting comment out of Japan where scholars there are denying the rape and murder of civilians at Nanking during the invasion of China.
                      Should Pakeha do the same here?
                      I was going to draw a comparison with what is happening in Syria, but thought/think you lack the understanding of the genocide that is happening there.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:50 pm

                      It’s all in the past Willy, so get over it.

                      Maori weren’t the first here, and they did terrible things to the people before them anyway, so they can’t complain.

                      We are ALL one nation now, nobody is special.

                      Maori have a gene that makes them more violent. All they had to do was let themselves be assimilated and they would have been ok and not had all those wars.

                      BINGO!

                      (good points though Willy)

                    • BM …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:58 pm

                      Maori have a gene that makes them more violent. All they had to do was let themselves be assimilated and they would have been ok and not had all those wars.

                      Bit like the Scots then.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      6 February 2014 at 7:50 pm

                      Well, I’ve gone back and read most of the posts.

                      “Maori are not indigenous.” Wow !!

                      Meg – so it’s true, the country formerly known as New Zealand/Aotearoa was originally colonized by “little green men” from outer space. Fantastic. The whole world waits to be enlightened.

                      Maori, like Pakeha, are modern day migrants. Perhaps they arrived around the same time – some on a waka, others in sail boats.
                      Such revelations.
                      So where are the burial plots for “the little green men” or did they leave before they died out?

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 9:42 pm

                      No one culture is more important than any other. No one culture is any better than any other.

                      Deny it as much as you want, but it is your attitude that prevents so many moving on.

                      Oh and if you want to see real racism, I suggest you move to Australia.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      7 February 2014 at 1:08 am

                      No one is saying one race is more “special” than another. But after the turn of the twentieth century, Maori were held back.
                      In the 1890’s/early 1900’s there were more Maori scholars than there were Pakeha scholars in New Zealand. Maori had their own printing presses. Most Pakeha then struggled to read and write. At that time Pakeha society felt threatened. It was easier to deny Maori their rights, than entitle them.
                      What Maori seek is the means to redress the imbalance imposed upon them. And the theft of their lands.
                      And for racialism abroad, one of the biggest protagonists was Sir Jo Bilke-Petersen, a one-time Premier of Queensland and former New Zealander.
                      You’d have danced a lovely goose-step/two-step under his regime, sucking up to his right-wing charm. Because that’s where you belong.

                    • Will@Welly …
                      9 February 2014 at 12:11 am

                      Meg – over in Aussie right now, with the supermarkets planning to “pull” New Zealand goods off Australia supermarket shelves is a sheer reactionary stance. It is not racialism, or bigotry, or ignorance, but blind arrogance based on the supposition that “I/we know best.” Some of the goods they intend withdrawing donot have an Australian equivalent.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 25.4.1.1.1.3
              6 February 2014 at 1:27 pm

              Karol didn’t call you one name. Not one. She correctly characterised your comments as hateful, you semi-literate dim bulb.

              Now that was name calling. You see the difference?

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 1:30 pm

                There was no difference.

                It is the only response your kind is capable of when your separatist attitudes are challenged.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 February 2014 at 1:37 pm

                  My “kind” 😆

                  Do you mean people who can understand sentences written in English? People who aren’t afraid of different languages and cultures? People who treat bigots with ridicule and contempt?

                  You wouldn’t know a separatist if one fell on you.

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 1:39 pm

                    No I mean those who are wrapped in while guilt and see a need to treat one culture special.

                    Your blind kind.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:48 pm

                      Justice is blind too, and supported by the vast, overwhelming majority, so I’m in good company. Unlike you. Alan Titford would probably appreciate a visitor though.

                    • bad12 …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:49 pm

                      But Maori are special Meg, of course kupapa upoko porangi such as you are giving a grand exhibition of are even more ‘spethul’ to us here at the Standard, that’s why we all are being so kind to you on this very special day…

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:50 pm

                      I think you will find most kiwis do not support your views.

                      And ad I said else where, Titford deserves to be executed.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:51 pm

                      Maori culture is no more special than any other culture in nz.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:53 pm

                      Supports the death penalty too. What a fine specimen.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:56 pm

                      Death penalty and smacking as well.

                      You must be frothing to think I vote labour and have nothing but the highest regard for Helen Clark.

                    • bad12 …
                      6 February 2014 at 1:58 pm

                      Having Meg around is sort of like being visited by a nut-case on steroids claiming to have just dropped in for a cuppa,

                      You start visually searching the clothing for the hidden axe…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:00 pm

                      Not really, Titford (you mind if I call you Titford? Good). Labour is welcome to you.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:01 pm

                      And yet we will agree on almost everything labour/the left stands for.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

                      Ahhh you are a greenie. Well now that explains everything.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:05 pm

                      I doubt it. Your “explanation” promises to be as delusional as the rest of your effluent.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:06 pm

                      It explains your attitude and views.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:10 pm

                      Whereas yours are explored by Hodson and Busseri.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:02 pm

                      Maori culture is no more special than any other culture in nz.

                      Somewhat more special and thoughtful than whatever the heck you’re espousing.

  26. Meg 26
    5 February 2014 at 11:24 pm

    Seeing as this is the 21st century and not the 18th oab, that is no longer allowed.

    See how things change and move on with time. Try it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1
      5 February 2014 at 11:28 pm

      Yes, you’re absolutely right, apart from the fact that the entire basis of your argument is that “might is right”, and I’m stronger than you. Suck it up.

    • weka 26.2
      5 February 2014 at 11:29 pm

      Colonisation could happen though. Am curious who you think the next legitimate owners of NZ should be. Chinese? US? Australian?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 26.2.1
        5 February 2014 at 11:37 pm

        Might is right Weka, but the art of warfare is deception. These parodoxes are not easily reconciled.

      • Flip 26.2.2
        6 February 2014 at 7:43 am

        Do not think ‘ownership’ of natural resources (land, sea, minerals) is legitimate. At least in the simple ordinary sense of I can do whatever I like with what I bought/own.

    • Psycho Milt 26.3
      6 February 2014 at 9:08 am

      Seeing as this is the 21st century and not the 18th oab, that is no longer allowed.

      I think you mean the 19th (not that confiscation of Maori land stopped in the 20th). Are you sure you know your country’s history?

      Also, you may have missed this story, in which the Public Works Act is being used to confiscate Maori Land in direct breach of the Treaty of Waitangi right here in the 21st Century. That “no longer allowed” thing isn’t actually true.

      • Meg 26.3.1
        6 February 2014 at 12:26 pm

        Check your law, the PWA allows the government to take anyone’s land.

        • weka 26.3.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 1:35 pm

          Yes, so your assertion that land grabs can’t happen in this day and age is bullshit. You can look to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 for an example that targeted Māori.

        • Psycho Milt 26.3.1.2
          6 February 2014 at 2:37 pm

          Check your law, the PWA allows the government to take anyone’s land.

          And? The government signed a treaty guaranteeing Maori ‘undisturbed’ possession of their land. It later passed a law allowing the government to take anyone’s land, including land belonging to the people it had earlier guaranteed undisturbed possession of their land. Surely even you should be able to figure out the PWA and the Treaty are incompatible.

          • Meg 26.3.1.2.1
            6 February 2014 at 2:45 pm

            New laws can override old ones, as well as old treaties.

            But I am not a fan of the PWA I will say that.

            However lets not pretend that when the British arrived they had fluffy duck live as one ideas. They were always hoping to take over, but there is some discussion that it was better for Maori the Brits rather than the French.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 26.3.1.2.1.1
              6 February 2014 at 3:02 pm

              You may have noticed that the people who we aren’t pretending had fluffy duck live as one ideas are all dead, Meg.

              You may also be aware that this generation has elected to honour the treaty, rather than use late 19thC French imperialism as some sort of benchmark for acceptable behaviour, but I suppose desperate positions such as yours require a lowering of standards.

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 3:07 pm

                Yep all dead, everyone from those days are gone. White and brown, alllll gone.

                Get the hint?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 February 2014 at 3:13 pm

                  Yes: their values are not ours. Get the hint, dim bulb?

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 3:21 pm

                    And don’t make the assumptions your position on the treaty is that of the majority.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:47 pm

                      I don’t need to assume it, Titford: I just need to reference the meagre handful of votes Kyle Chapman attracts. Labour, The Greens, National represent about 80% of the electorate between them. They support honouring the Treaty. QED.

                    • mickysavage …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      Why is that relevant? If most people agree I should take your car should I be able to take your car?

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:10 pm

                      I’ll vote in favour of that micky 🙂

                      edit: perhaps you could take her computer and smartphone too.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      1850 values, remember? You’ve got to take her right to vote too.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:20 pm

                      It is relevant Mickey because we font do that do of thing these days. I know it’s hard for people living in the past to come to grips with that, but there ya go.

                      Try it. Let history be history. You will be happier.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:06 pm

                      “That sort of thing”? You are here arguing precisely for the denial of property rights based on some arbitrary line you want to draw under “the past.”

                      You can’t even grasp that one simple concept. You are the sort of person who does “that sort of thing”, Titford.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:20 pm

                      “It is relevant Mickey because we font do that do of thing these days.”

                      Maybe you could calm down a bit and try speaking more clearly.

            • Psycho Milt 26.3.1.2.1.2
              6 February 2014 at 5:51 pm

              New laws can override old ones, as well as old treaties.

              It is kind of depressing that this is what passes for reasoning in a substantial proportion of the population. There are people on Kiwiblog right now coming up with way better counterarguments than this one, which basically isn’t one.

              In short: no, you don’t get to unilaterally write legislation to override a treaty you signed, at least not legitimately you don’t. This is one of the basic features of a treaty.

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 5:53 pm

                In short, yea a government can if it has the numbers. Yea it can.

                • Psycho Milt …
                  6 February 2014 at 10:09 pm

                  So, you’ve gone from saying “this sort of thing” doesn’t happen any more, to saying that it does but it’s OK because NZ governments can do whatever they can get a majority for in Parliament. Which means that even you are aware that your repeated assertion that this kind of thing doesn’t happen any more is a load of old cobblers.

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 10:16 pm

                    No, I am saying a government can if it wants. Anyone who thinks system who makes the rules can’t change the rules is daft.

                    And at this point in time, I am correct, this sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore.

  27. Meg 27
    6 February 2014 at 12:05 am

    Interesting that DoS as assigned me a race without knowing I have ngapuhi running all through my family tree. Ignorance is so sweet at times.

    • Murray Olsen 27.1
      6 February 2014 at 2:16 am

      Interesting that they ran all through the tree without leaving footprints.

      • Psycho Milt 27.1.1
        6 February 2014 at 9:13 am

        I think I preferred “some of my best friends are Maori” to this new thing of “some of my ancestors are Maori” – the “friends” one was just laughably stupid, the “ancestors” one is a bit creepy.

        • marty mars 27.1.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 1:49 pm

          I agree. It seems to be the ‘get out of jail free’ card for racists these days. I’m sure the ancestors are over the moon about having such dim descendants.

    • Descendant Of Sssmith 27.2
      6 February 2014 at 6:21 am

      “Many iwi are living as victims, treaty settlements anyone. The English pinched my ancestral land too, but that’s conquest for ya. Time to move on. Oh and as for pride in their culture, I would disagree with that given the Maori language is boarding on endangered again, and how many know their family history? Visit their local marae? Some do, but I am willing to bet most do not.

      Also, Maori are no more indigenous to NZ than anyone else. Hell they were not even the first ones here, so let’s not rewrite history anymore than it has been.”

      “Interesting that DoS as assigned me a race without knowing I have ngapuhi running all through my family tree. ”

      Nah you assigned yourself a race. See how you speak about being English in the first person (my ancestral lans) and Maori in the third (they were not) . It’s some degree of weirdness to do that.

      It seems a reasonable assumption based on how you express yourself rather than ignorance.

      I’m happy to move you from being white to being a spud.

      You would however be the first person ever of Maori descent to throw the “white man’s fault” line at me. It’s totally strange.

      You’ll also note I didn’t actually say you were white (even though I thought it).

      “Your next statement too is typical of all the whities who push that line. Of course they are all usually quite racist to boot.”

      It’s yourself that included you there. At least you feel you belong somewhere.

  28. Meg 28
    6 February 2014 at 12:07 am

    Actually oab my argument is the past is past. Remember it, but time to move on.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 28.1
      6 February 2014 at 12:28 am

      Thanks for playing Waitangi Day Bingo, Meg. Some of your best relatives are Quislings.

    • karol 28.2
      6 February 2014 at 8:31 am

      Actually oab my argument is the past is past. Remember it, but time to move on.

      For someone with “ngapuhi running all through” your family tree, you really show a great understanding of Maori culture re the significance of history.

  29. Meg 29
    6 February 2014 at 12:30 am

    Yes the bingo, that was a nice bit of separatist writing playing all the victim cards and crying over the evil white man, wasn’t it.

    • Paul 29.1
      6 February 2014 at 8:01 am

      Stop playing the provocative game.
      You appear to be spoiling for a fight.
      Most people on this site find your views ludicrous and/or repulsive.
      Now please return to your friends at kiwiblog.

      • Meg 29.1.1
        6 February 2014 at 12:22 pm

        Again another example of the hostile approach if anyone dare step away from the “evil white man” mentality.

        • bad12 29.1.1.1
          6 February 2014 at 1:41 pm

          Instead of spitting out the venomous one liners Meg, how bout you provide the proof of such assertions made by you above that both sides broke the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and that Maori were not the 1st people of Aotearoa,

          Could i recommend that my belief is that you seek the personal intervention of a psychiatrist Meg, as your deeply ingrained false beliefs appear more than just superficial ‘wing-nuts’ kneejerk’s and as the ‘hero’ Alan Titford found out to His detriment may in the future cause you to take actions that would endanger your future freedom…

          • Meg 29.1.1.1.1
            6 February 2014 at 1:42 pm

            Alan Titford deserves to be executed.

            • bad12 29.1.1.1.1.1
              6 February 2014 at 1:55 pm

              Do you see now Meg why i recommend the Shrink for you???, while your here tho, lets get back to the serious bizz of the day and you providing ‘proof’ of things like Maori breaching the Treaty of Waitangi and Maori not being the 1st people of the land here in Aotearoa,

              Come on Meg spill the goods, tell us all something we have not heard befor, hell the worst that can happen is we all crack up laughing, pointing the finger,(at you), while chanting the loonies are coming the loonies are coming…

            • One Anonymous Bloke 29.1.1.1.1.2
              6 February 2014 at 1:59 pm

              🙄

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 2:00 pm

                You disagree?

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 February 2014 at 2:01 pm

                  🙄

                • bad12 …
                  6 February 2014 at 2:11 pm

                  Keep this up Meg and you will be down to one word at a time comments, You make assertions here at the Standard, if called upon to provide proof of such assertions you do so or be thought of as something that would gleefully attach itself to any of Blubber Boy over at ‘wail oil’s appendages…

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 2:17 pm

                    I can see why Slater has such low disregard for some here.

                    But then any political party has it’s undesirables. Even one as great as Labour.

                    • Paul …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:18 pm

                      You are not a Labour voter.
                      You’re starting to sound like a previous troll.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:22 pm

                      You’re using Slater as your guide to online etiquette? Or anything to do with human behaviour. lol.

                      btw, read the standard’s groundrules. There’s some stuff in there about not assuming this is Labour party website, and the moderators take it pretty seriously.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:24 pm

                      I was not referring to his website, rather some of its contributors. There is a difference. And it is very clear this is not a Labour Party website. There is a wiff of green in the air for one thing.

                    • bad12 …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:31 pm

                      Now you are really tempting fate Meg, as lprent would advise, go read the ‘About’ link at the top of the page, this aint a Labour Party web-site Meg and it does pay to engage your brain befor typing and pressing submit comment,

                      So really you have nothing to say here except for anti-Maori diatribe for which you cannot provide the slightest basis of fact,

                      My sad lament continues, ”Oh god please send us a better class of ‘wing-nut’ with at least a small amount of intelligence so as we all can debate everything from a factual basis…

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:33 pm

                      Soooo saying it was very clear this want a Labour Party website confused you….. How?

                    • Paul …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:48 pm

                      I am really confused (based on the views espoused by you here) why you vote for the Labour Party.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 2:57 pm

                      Health, education, protection of the poor, workers rights, adequate funding for hospitals, schools the police, the welfare state.

                    • weka …
                      6 February 2014 at 3:48 pm

                      “Health, education, protection of the poor, workers rights, adequate funding for hospitals, schools the police, the welfare state.”

                      Funny. If you cared about those things you would be voting GP or Mana.

                    • karol …
                      6 February 2014 at 4:15 pm

                      “Health, education, protection of the poor, workers rights, adequate funding for hospitals, schools the police, the welfare state.”

                      All very important things. But, providing funding doesn’t ensure that damaging institutional privileges and power structures will be dismantled.

                      eg,: possible to have adequate funding for schools while outlawing speaking of Maori, and representations of Maori culture, while enabling higher rates of formal education success by Pakeha compared with Maori. etc.

              • Paul …
                6 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

                Is Meg a new visitor?

        • Paul 29.1.1.2
          6 February 2014 at 2:02 pm

          Since you came on this thread, you have been spoiling for a fight.
          I doubt you have bothered to read Morgan Godfrey’s blog. Instead you come on here ranting your ill informed and educated views.
          You will find like minded people on whale oil.

          • Meg 29.1.1.2.1
            6 February 2014 at 2:04 pm

            1 I read it

            2 I am banned from wo by Cameron for my attacks on his lies

            • marty mars 29.1.1.2.1.1
              6 February 2014 at 4:56 pm

              lol I’m sorry but I can’t take the bullshit from you anymore – it is easy to see why you are so angry Meg and the fact that you are directing the anger at yourself really is pitiful, distressing and sad.

              • Meg …
                6 February 2014 at 5:23 pm

                Why would I be angry with myself? I’m not a separatist living on white man guilt.

                But it should be interesting to see your cereal box psych babble when you tell me why I am sooooo angry. So, let’s have it then.

                • marty mars …
                  6 February 2014 at 5:36 pm

                  You are a separatist meg – the worst kind. But you are funny too so keep smacking that keyboard and regurgitating the lines you think you thought of yourself.

                  • Meg …
                    6 February 2014 at 5:39 pm

                    Yep, one law for all, everyone equal. Those are the traits of separatists.

                    Dim bulb doesn’t even come close to describing your comment.

                    • marty mars …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:47 pm

                      I can understand your frustration Meg, separatists often feel that way and 1law4all are the biggest bunch of separatist losers out there (well to be honest ansell is right up there too).

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 5:50 pm

                      Yes, how dare we all be accountable without special treatment for one group based on their race.

                      Tut tut, that is just awful.

                      [Meg or whoever you are you are now well and truly in the category of trolling. Improve or you will be treated as a troll – MS]

                      [lprent: Yep. Added to moderation. Will discard any slogan flame starters ]

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      6 February 2014 at 6:04 pm

                      Yep, one law for all, everyone equal. Those are the traits of separatists.

                      it’s a trait of the ignorant, of someone who has no real or credible belief that people are all equal.

                    • Meg …
                      6 February 2014 at 9:39 pm

                      @ MS, so because I do not accept the line the treaty I’d important and Maori deserve special treatment, you consider this being a troll?

                      Keeping in mind I am not the one calling people racist or swearing up a storm.

                      Interesting decision.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2014 at 6:56 am

                      Perhaps I can explain. Making assertions without evidence is what tr*lls do. You make assertions without evidence, and repeatedly fail to engage with responses to your drivel.

                      For example, saying “you’re a separatist” twenty times doesn’t make me (or anyone else) a separatist, it makes you a Bellman (look it up).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      7 February 2014 at 7:20 am

                      PS: aka the argumentum ad nauseam. There, that should get you started.

                    • Meg …
                      7 February 2014 at 7:05 pm

                      AOB when you champion a system where a group of people are treated different to the rest because of something that happened almost 200 years ago, and has no relevance today, you are prompting a seperate society.

                      But I understand if you cannot see that given your comments on this matter.

                • framu …
                  7 February 2014 at 7:45 am

                  you know how people who are caught out quite often get hostile?

                  seems your feeling pretty guilty all by yourself

                  seriously though – your comments have a highly disturbing tone to them – i mean a, “should we call a doctor” kind of disturbing

            • PapaMike 29.1.1.2.1.2
              7 February 2014 at 10:42 am

              Meg –
              am surprised that you are banned on WO Slater’s web, as I understood that he never banned anything that is said there, being part of his policy.
              You must be unique.
              Congratulations

  30. Pasupial 30
    6 February 2014 at 7:35 am

    This is a very timely series of brief videos from the Human Rights Commission. Iwi leaders reading the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (in both Te Reo and English):

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1402/S00089/human-rights-of-indigenous-people-in-the-video-spotlight.htm

    [Comment copy/pasted from above, but I’m not wanting to give that bigot the last word here.]

    • srylands 30.1
      6 February 2014 at 2:39 pm

      Neither the HRC or the UN are credible sources.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 30.1.1
        6 February 2014 at 5:18 pm

        Earth to S Rylands. Human rights are legal concepts; as such they are asserted, by the NZ BoRA, for example, or the US constitution. Keep shooting the messenger, though: it reveals your character.

  31. North 31
    6 February 2014 at 2:36 pm

    Helen Clark must be feeling a bit nauseous. See above at 1.56 pm words of love from sMeg’.

  32. Will@Welly 32
    6 February 2014 at 5:37 pm

    I think “Meg” might be house-sitting over the “long weekend” and is using someone else’s computer to “troll.”
    Labour/Maori – yeah right – more like a gormless Tory troll.

  33. mac1 33
    6 February 2014 at 8:51 pm

    Today, Waitangi Day. One of my best days for a long time.

    Went to the local Marae at 10 a.m. and after a nice short, informal welcome me and Mrs Mac1 and two English residents here, all Pakeha, enjoyed the festivities. First, we two men helped empty the hangi pit of its embers and helped fill the umu in after the food was placed therein. I showed our visitors around the Whare Nui, which was a privilege to be invited to do.

    We then learned to play Mu Porere (sp?) IIRC, a Maori board strategy game, and watched others playing various, more physical, games. This was followed by a hugely entertaining talk on the Whare Nui and its relationship with the local iwi and community. I stayed on for the kai, having decided I wanted to eat some of the fruits of my labours and singed forearms. I sang for my supper with a couple of songs as people queued for food since I am tangata whenua at this marae.

    I was pleased to see that four Labour candidates for our electorate, over the last six elections gone and to come this year, attended this celebration.

    I talked with former students, did dishes, sang, laughed a lot, talked history with a PhD student, and talked about engagement especially for the young and for Maori in both tribal and national politics and affairs with a switched-on iwi leader.

    He had pointed out the two faces at the top of the maehe below the figure of Te Rauparaha at the front of the whare. These faces face each other, in symbolic engagement, conversation, communion. A lesson for many there from my brief scanning of some comments above.

    I left at 5 p.m. resolved to reconnect even more. Ka nui te aroha, ka nui te matauranga- he ra ataahua.

  34. One Anonymous Bloke 34
    7 February 2014 at 7:15 am

    Good write-up on Stuff this morning. A lovely counterpoint to yesterday’s bile from Meg, and the lying Prime Minister’s race-baiting.

    Most of the media reports this years have been along the same vein. Perhaps they listened to Rachel Smalley.

    • framu 34.1
      7 February 2014 at 7:48 am

      yes – exactly why has the head of our country spent the last few days engaging in deliberately talking up racial disharmony? (via the protest stuff and the settlement comments)

      • One Anonymous Bloke 34.1.1
        7 February 2014 at 8:05 am

        A dog-whistle to his party’s racist base is the charitable explanation. If not that, perhaps he’s projecting.

    • karol 34.2
      7 February 2014 at 9:00 am

      Excellent. It acknowledge all the different kinds of things that happen on Waitangi Day.

    • Meg 34.3
      7 February 2014 at 7:01 pm

      Cute how facts an opposing views are considered bile by those too blind to see how better nz would be of all were equal.

  35. Pasupial 35
    11 February 2014 at 5:33 am

    Waitangi weekend is done now, but I see that last voice on this thread is still the one with a mote in her eye, accusing others of blindness.

    The Hikoi seems to have been successful in highlighting the perils of deep-sea drilling to Māori communities across Aotearoa. Not least through the historic speeches of prominent marchers Turei and Sykes:

    “Deep sea oil drilling robs our kids. It robs them of a clean ocean, of safe food, of sustainable jobs when they grow up.

    The Greens are the leading political voice in the fight to protect our oceans.

    The Treaty guarantees our children the right to clean and oil free seas.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1402/S00062/metiria-turei-powhiri-for-party-leaders.htm