How not to handle a rebel

38 comments on “How not to handle a rebel ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   16 February 2011 at 8:52 am

   Labour’s lovin’ it. Oddly enough, I think John Key and his crew will also be appreciating their role in irritating for this successful implosion.

   On a more serious note, Hone represents the kind of independent voice that our MPs have lost over the year to a stricter and stricter party line system. That loss over the years has reduced the vigour and colourful nature of political debate in NZ And we are all worse off for it. Best wishes to him.
2. lprent 2

   16 February 2011 at 9:08 am

   It is very weird. Offhand I cannot think of a precedent or even a justification to try to order an electorate MP muzzled. This should make reading the links (and comments) interesting to see if anyone can figure out a justification (that doesn’t engender a thought pattern past a belly laugh)
   • lprent 2.1

     16 February 2011 at 9:44 am

     Matt McCarten has the whole thing well bracketed. It is a policy debate similar to those I hear all of the time inside Labour, amongst the MP’s, and between activists and their MP’s.

     I spent about 20 years actively supporting Helen Clark whilst actively disagreeing with her on many policy areas, our strategies and tactics, or her interpretation of public mood in LEC or directly.

     I would have expected the same respect if I’d had ever been dumb enough to go into caucus. By the sound of it, the Maori Party leadership has long stopped listening to Hone in caucus – which speaks volumes about their inability to run the parliamentary party. So Hone inevitability speaks out inside the party and in the media.

     The point about politics is everyone disagrees with almost everyone else. You work together on what you agree with and argue on the rest. But you always get a voice inside the forums set aside for it. You look at behavior rather than policy disagreements as being the dividing line.

     The current leadership in the MP clearly don’t like being questioned. They should be bloody glad I am not in it.
3. ianmac 3

   16 February 2011 at 9:11 am

   Reports say that Hone “burst into tears” over the “pressure of the conflict.”
   What actually happened was when starting to speak about the support from his wife and from his electorate, he bowed his head and tears fell. I took that to mean that he was humbled by the support.

   And yes Tariana should feel the weight of her hypocrisy. A bit like Bennet receiving help from the Benefit then diminishing it for others in need now.
   • Mac1 3.1

     16 February 2011 at 10:32 am

     I agree with your reading of those tears, ianmac, and it gives me some sympathy and respect for Hone Harawira as a man, especially since he has way off target over other matters. What lprent says about working within the tent gells with my near forty years experience in the Labour Party.

     One of the benefits of MMP has been that those within the Party who really did take different stands on pretty big issues have now sloughed off into other minor parties like ACT and the modern Party is much more philosophically united. Other small parties seem to have trouble with their philosophical roots, their selection procedures and the disadvantages of a small activist base – perhaps the Maori Party is too broad a church for Hone Harawira.

     I still predict and await with some satisfaction a post MMP shift and split within the National Party. There has been some already for example with the religious Right and ACT, but the urban/rural, liberal/conservative, traditional/neo-con divides are held together with the glue of office and opportunity. One or two good electoral reverses and who knows what will happen………

     Capcha ‘positions’. Ha!
     • lprent 3.1.1

       16 February 2011 at 12:15 pm

       The point of having a party is to have the opportunity to argue. If there isn’t an opportunity to do that, that is when you get the type of mess that the Maori party (and for that matter the recent debacle in Act) shows – a ‘leadership’ that cannot get people moving forward in a common direction.
4. Jum 4

   16 February 2011 at 10:51 am

   The Maori party have obviously never heard of personal sovereignty, or even all Maori sovereignty, but only elite Maori sovereignty; JKeyll and the business rotundtable have been pulling the strings on this, promising Turia, the biggest control freak of them all, some carrot which will eventually go rotten on the Maori party.

   Never mind Labour loving this implosion; I’m loving it. Karma to a party that refused to acknowledge the good things that Labour/Greens even New Zealand First did for Maori as Aotearoans/New Zealanders. The number of Maori I met up with around the 2008 election that had been filled with such venom against Labour/Greens by Turia and NAct was huge. At a protest march against the previous Auckland Council for refusing to follow through with the Otahuhu swimming pool Maori were even blaming Labour for that! John Banks, previous Auckland mayor, a Labour supporter – I don’t think so!
   • Adele 4.1

     16 February 2011 at 1:30 pm

     Teenaa koe, Jum

     If Labour was as good as you say towards Maaori than there would be no Maaori Party.

     There is this huge assumption by Paakeha New Zealanders that what is good for Maaori is to be ‘white-minded.’ Think and be like the average Paakeha and ‘she’ll be right.’

     We have our own views on what is right for us as separate identities in this country – and Labour never bothered to listen or was too arrogant to take heed of these views.

     If the Maaori Party implodes that will not be the end of Maaori politicism. One final point, taangata whenua is a better term to describe the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa, Aotearoan sounds like a waka from Mars.
     • the pink postman 4.1.1

       16 February 2011 at 4:07 pm

       Of course Maori have a different outlook on philosophy and living than Pakeha ,and so they should. However in Aotearoa we need to live in partnership with each other. Most would agree that Labour has done more to achieve this than National .I do not think Labour has ever run a campaign like Iwi/Kiwi. Just as it was Labour who condemned apartheid (although Bolger was first in line to take credit.),
       The Maori Party should acknowledge this ,but this will not happen under Turia. The hypocrisy of Turia is sickening . I expect this is inherited from her GI.Joe father .Its certainly not the way I have noticed among the Maori people I know .

       What I am hoping for is that Harawira will become the Leader of the Maori Party and then support Labour as the government whilst maintaining its independence/
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         16 February 2011 at 4:25 pm

         And LAB needs to understand the spirit of MMP and treat the Mp as true coalition partners in all issues. (Mind you Turia needs to be gone for any of this to happen).

         NAT in contrast have been treating the Mp has a disposable political tool and that has become more than obvious 2 years in.
     • Jum 4.1.2

       16 February 2011 at 6:39 pm

       Nonsense, Adele,

       Tariana Turia had an agenda; Labour did not agree that her agenda was for the good of All New Zealanders. Also, whenever I talk about Maori being people just like whites are people – good or bad and often both, I am accused of racism. That’s nonsense too. People are human beings first, their colour and culture second. Humans hold their humanity in common.

       After that commonality every person is different. Every person has a different view. Why do you mention a group of Paakeha New Zealanders – that is lumping them together. You also have the right to take me to task for writing about Maori as a group when it is quite obvious they are certainly not a group of people. They are individuals and they are letting their Maori party know that they are not happy about Hone Harawira’s treatment.

       By your use of the ‘aa’, you are not in either of those groups either. You are in a group of your own, Adele.
       • Adele 4.1.2.1

         17 February 2011 at 9:56 am

         Teenaa koe, Jum

         The double ‘aa’ is correct form in the absence of the macron – and the double vowel also denotes meaning as in wahine = woman, waahine = women. The group I represent is quite large.

         To extrapolate the commonality we share as humans to an overriding ambition towards oneness is such a steaming mass of tuutae – a waste product of last century thinking.

         However, if the hegemony all decide to become Maaori – I will gladly admit to wrong thinking, and will even volunteer to assist in performing the circumcisions.
         • Jum 4.1.2.1.1

           17 February 2011 at 9:25 pm

           Adele,

           Why is it you cannot stand the fact that all inhabitants of this land are people? There is nothing inherently special about Maori. There is nothing special about you, except that you are a human being. Live with that.

           More importantly, if you seriously imagine I personally would want to be anything even remotely like you in your thinking and your racism, you are imagining shxt. You’re certainly blogging it. So, extrapolate off.
           • Adele 4.1.2.1.1.1

             19 February 2011 at 8:04 am

             Teenaa koe, Jum

             This country, the world, needs less ‘people’ like you, How can you possibly even think to imply that your humanity is somehow greater than mine when you refuse to acknowledge that ‘people’ are not all the same.

             Instead, you would rather obliterate difference, to skin the animal and reduce humanity to flesh and bone only – to make it less cumbersome, less trying for you, than to actually attempt to understand and celebrate the uniqueness of others.

             Also, Maaori have never claimed to be ‘special’ that word is usually used by the haters and wreckers to fuel anger ad nauseum. Maaori, as taangata whenua, however, do have rights as afforded by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I know, you would rather that document was obliterated too.
             • neoleftie …

               19 February 2011 at 8:24 am

               I think Phil Goff Could / might have said it right “two people, one nation”
               It not really white new zealanders fault for being misguided or not understanding maori it simple ignorance. Gosh the next ten years for this country are going to be so pivotal on the formation of what our nation really is and stands for.
               Unity or seperatism
               Bi cultural understanding and intergration of valued cultural impactors or a cleaved society.
               Gosh bring on the open and honest debate about our connected future in all facets.
             • Jum …

               19 February 2011 at 12:03 pm

               The world needs less divisive ‘people’ like you Adele, who deliberately set out to obfuscate what other people are saying. I will repeat it. “Maori being people just like whites are people – good or bad and often both”. In trying to deny that simple statement about people as a whole you are implying that Maori are special and that they have never committed any wrong in the past, at present or in the future.

               Again, “People are human beings first, their colour and culture second. Humans hold their humanity in common.”

               Again, “Humans hold their humanity in common. After that commonality every person is different.” You mislead when you try to imply I said my humanity is greater than yours. Get rid of the poison invading your system, Adele. On this thread you are the hater and wrecker.

               As for the treaty, that will play out in New Zealand in its own time, with or without your input or mine. We will also get to see how Maori deal with the power and influence they get from the resources that they are steadily gaining through the treaty process.

               ‘Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’.
               (Origin

               Lord ActonThis arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

               “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

               Another English politician with no shortage of names – William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, is sometimes wrongly attributed as the source. He did say something similar, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

               “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it”)
               • Adele …

                 19 February 2011 at 10:19 pm

                 Teenaa koe, Jum

                 To follow your logic to its rightful place in absurdity I could very well make the statement ‘all dogs are the same’ – as they share common ancestry in the wolf.

                 Now have a fully-grown Neapolitan Mastiff sit on your lap in place of a Chihuahua, and then try to blithely say, “difference doesn’t matter – a dog is a dog.”

                 I find it ironic that you choose to quote to me the words of a dead white man (Google this) to further your pious cause. Moreso, since the dead one (Acton) is of the nobility, wealthy, an imperialist, and supported the confederacy in the American civil wars. Now which one of these virtues points to a man in sympathy with the commoner, or the slave?

                 It is presumptuous to lecture Maaori about the exercise of power especially as power corrupted first arrived here with the Endeavour and remains visible today in the power structures that are parliament, policy, finance, corporation and the media – an ocean of whiteness, and in comparison, Maaori are but flotsam and jetsam, caught in ocean currents.

                 Your type of thinking is the death of humanity not its salvation.
                 • Jum …

                   19 February 2011 at 11:02 pm

                   Finally, you get it – a dog is a dog. A person is a person. A human is a human. Then you move on from there. You can be the Chihuahua if you like…

                   Your rant is a perfect example of why I am concerned that you have got so lost in your hatred of anyone who doesn’t agree with you, it is obviously clouding your logic.

                   Again, “People are humans first, their colour and culture second. Humans hold their humanity in common. AFTER that commonality every person is DIFFERENT.”

                   You really hate white people don’t you. Yet you forget in all of this that you are not the only person now, before and in future (brown, white, blue or black) that will suffer at the hands of the power structures of parliament, policy, finance, corporation and the media and if you weren’t so far up yourself, you would be viewing the future on behalf of everyone not just the ones you favour.

                   By the way, the mantra you’re spouting has no individual flavour to it, just what your ‘large group’ have instilled in you or you in it.

                   Maori speaking about the death of humanity forget their own past.
                 • Rosy …

                   19 February 2011 at 11:52 pm

                   If we put our cultural differences ahead of humanity we’re lost, this does not mean we should ignore power relationships or work to recompense those who have been subject to injustices…

                   “To follow your logic to its rightful place in absurdity”… to put our cultural differences ahead of our shared humaness creates the sort of talk that justifies discrimination, if it is used by the powerful, and of course the extremes of discrimination – slavery, indigenous reservations & genocide. And it’s interesting through history to see the elite of complicit in the demise of their own through their support of the powerful. The elite in any culture have more in common with the elite in another culture than they do with the dispossessed in their own culture IMO.
                   • Locus …

                     19 February 2011 at 11:53 pm

                     @ Adele. Who cares where a quote came from, it’s the idea that we should be debating. The idea that absolute power corrupts is worth thinking about.

                     Are Maori one type of dog and Pakeha another? What a strange analogy to use when you are trying (I think) to explain the primacy of historical oppression of a race and a culture over the ideas of human commonality.

                     I’ve lived my life all around the world, and been swamped in ocean of otherness (colour, culture, religion) in so many places. The fundamental learning is that we have more in common with others when we laugh and cry and debate together, and that our language and culture gives us a stronger sense of being part of a special family.

                     I will never know what it is like to be born into a minority in a culturally repressive society …. because I am from Aotearoa. As a New Zealander, I have the privelege of an education, clean water, sanitation, housing, a wonderful cultural heritage. Every day I wake up I am proud of our tikanga and our uniqueness as New Zealanders.

                     Maori have suffered and are suffering the results of colonialism, so we have to make things better and all play our part in creating a future where we can all delight in a kiwi culture that is a product of the best of Maori and Pakeha.
                   • Adele …

                     20 February 2011 at 2:36 am

                     Teenaa koorua, Jum and Rosy

                     The western tradition is vilified the world over because of the type of thinking that you both maintain. The blank state that you call ‘humanity’ is a total fiction perpetuated to alleviate any moral guilt associated with assimilating or making extinct the traditions and cultures of others.

                     Rosy, discrimination occurs when difference is denied, demeaned, and discounted.
                   • Jum …

                     20 February 2011 at 3:22 pm

                     Adele …
                     20 February 2011 at 2:36 am ‘discrimination occurs when difference is denied, demeaned, and discounted.’

                     Ye Gods. Again, “every PERSON is DIFFERENT.” That is not denying any person, demeaning any person or discounting any person.

                     In Rosalind Miles book ‘Women’s History of the World, she writes about evidence of a single female having the gene which has flowed down through all the humans in the world, so whether you (and I) like it or not Adele, you, Rosy and I are a lot closer than you are trying to preach.

                     PS I’m not sure what colour or culture Rosalind Miles is.
                   • Rosy …

                     21 February 2011 at 3:59 am

                     @ Adele I won’t argue your definition of discrimination. I agree discrimination always occurs when difference is demeaned. I have no problem with acknowledging difference and I have no problem that discrimination and injustice resulting from difference needs to be resolved. My problem is when it is put ahead of acknowledging a common humanity first.

                     A very straightforward real world example: apparently there was (until yesterday) a facebook page called ‘I hate poor people’ It had post something along the lines of ‘poor people don’t have GPs they have veterinarians.’ IMO this is exactly what happens when people forget to their common humanity.
5. tino rangatiratanga 5

   16 February 2011 at 3:59 pm

   Will Sharples lose his seat to Shane Jones this year as the fallout to the Maori party taking orders from the Iwi Leadership Group and the National Party…

   Tamaki Makaurau Kaumatua call on all to “prepare to hikoi”
   February 14th, 2011

   http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/10140

   Elders from the National Maori Council have called for another hikoi from Northland to Parliament to oppose the new Marine and Coastal Area Bill.

   Kuia and Kaumatua of Tamaki Makaurau present at a Public Meeting held last week expressed their concerns related to the statements that have been made by the Maori Party co-Chairpersons, Dr. Peter Sharples and Tariana Turia.

   The Kaumatua and Kuia of Tamaki Makaurau have moved a vote of no confidence in the Maori Party leadership.

   Selwyn Muru an esteemed Kaumatua of Ngati Kuri who resides in Tamaki Makaurau said, ‘we were very dissatisfied with the Takutai Moana bill as put out by the Labour Party and we are equally dissatisfied with the bill put out by the National Party,’

   The Kaumatua went on to say ‘how dare the Maori Party leadership trample the Mana of our Tupuna.’

   Mr Muru further stated ‘that as a result of this and our immediate concerns for the Mana of Maori we are calling for everyone to prepare to Hikoi (March) against the Takutai Moana Bill.’

   Networks have been alerted throughout Aotearoa to prepare for a Hikoi to oppose the Takutai Moana Bill.

   _____________________________________

   * Selwyn Muru – Ngati Kuri Kaumatua- [redacted]
   * Lillian Howe – Kuia o Te Whanau a Apanui – [redacted]
   * Ngaire Te Hira – Executive NZ Maori Council – [redacted]
6. ak 6

   16 February 2011 at 9:20 pm

   In short, this media ban reveals a nasty authoritarian streak in the Maori Party

   Mmmm….either that or a timely desire (by both parties) not to shatter the aspirations and blood-wrought toil of generations by self-imploding in a blaze of NACT-fed media hysteria.

   Labour’s lovin’ it.

   Got a link for that Colly? If they are, and are anything but deeply concerned and doing their level best to avoid another Alliancehilation, then the last shreds of political nous and progressive principle just left their building.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     16 February 2011 at 9:40 pm

     Sorry mate just an educated stab, I am guessing that no one in LAB has sympathies for Turiana getting some of her own medicine back.

     But yeah its a bit like cutting ones’ nose off.
7. Tony P 7

   16 February 2011 at 9:35 pm

   This week’s Listener editorial has (surprise surprise) come down firmly in favour of the Maori Party in all this.
   http://www.listener.co.nz/
   • neoleftie 7.1

     19 February 2011 at 8:31 am

     actaully i wonder how much the MParty has been a brake on the tory far right faction on developing policy. If you weight things up not much really has happened in a radical sence given the power players within national. So maybe just maybe a blue rinse maori party caucus actaully modfied somewhat the extremes that could have happened.
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       19 February 2011 at 9:01 am

       Interesting theory, but NAT also do not need the Mp, and its a question of who Key and English would prefer to placate – their own blue grass roots or the Mp. I pick the former personally.

       The far bigger motivating factor in being highly centrist this term – the shot at a second term in power that they do not want to waste.
       • neoleftie 7.1.1.1

         19 February 2011 at 9:14 am

         true true but the Tories arent highly centrised, they simple are precieved and have given the false preception the are more centre right this go around – the great hood wink.
         Sorry to say it but if the economy was in better shape the tories would have quietly gone about the far right agenda. They only brake is the they cant touch the State or its function cause this is holding the economy up. privatising = job losses, resizine the public sector = job losses.
         job losses = less tax and less spending.
         The maori party, in my opinion, is looking long term. look to the next coalition positioning to see the true spirit of maoridom, maybe they pick and choose micro level policies that benefit them but apart from supply and confidence as per the agreement they really fundamental back the left block.
8. Adele 8

   21 February 2011 at 7:23 am

   Teenaa koe, Rosy

   Thank you for your rational response. The issue for me is that I do not believe that it is possible to appreciate the humanity of another without first acknowledging and appreciating the differences (culture and traditions) that construct their humanity. I say first understand the differences and then you may just arrive at the underlying agreement that is humanity.

   It is not sufficient in this day and age to depend upon the basic concept ‘we are all human’ to survive living amongst others. That is simply too arrogant (and lazy) an approach towards understanding the humanity of another.
   • Jum 8.1

     21 February 2011 at 6:16 pm

     Adele,

     Culture and tradition come after birth. It is neither arrogant or lazy to state that humanity is a commonality of living creatures that take the human form.

     Maybe another word is in order – humanoid? humanist

     But possibly there is a place for you, Rosy and myself in the word ‘humanity’: 1.the human race, 2.the quality of being human, 3.kindness or mercy – which suggests one function of humanity.

     Still, Adele, with your arrogant replies, there is little chance of you and I ever reaching a stage of understanding, kindness or mercy, but I have no problem continuing the struggle.

     Unlike you, I certainly don’t want to ‘survive living amongst others’. I want to enjoy the process of living amongst others. Providing ‘others’ treat my opinion with the respect they expect from me with their opinions, there is more chance to do so.

     Maybe, a compromise is in order:

     Humanity begins and ends at babyhood. Following that the personage is moulded and raised by other persons which is when the culture and traditions kick in.
     • neoleftie 8.1.1

       21 February 2011 at 6:39 pm

       hmmm what is so wrong with one of a different culture wishing to celebrate and rejoice in the difference of that culture…The only seperatist we have are those locked inside the majority who dont want to even consider that another just maybe another culture might have some insight into ways that would bring the betterment to humanity.
       • Jum 8.1.1.1

         21 February 2011 at 8:01 pm

         Neoleftie

         I suggest you read the whole thread, which was actually about the Maori Party. It ended up being an assault on me being white and for daring to quote a white person who talked about total power corrupting, which I thought was a good quote for anyone contemplating sovereignty. Adele and I have had this debate before and no doubt we will have it many times in the future.

         Then we moved on to what humanity meant. I’m quite enjoying it.

         I also had a wee chuckle because at some stage we were sort of agreeing but that had got lost, I think…

         I suggest Adele reads Rosalind Miles’ book that I quoted above. It talks about the female goddess who once ruled supreme. She had many names but she was the one true God and she was female. It ties in with Adele’s blurb on Deborah’s ‘Two World Views/In a Strange Land.

         Adele has an arrogance in that she believes everything she says but never accepts that other people, those bad white people, could actually have a view too.

         Adele is arrogant in that she seems to think Maori are the only ones who subscribe to the ways of women. I also mention that Maori men may not have her beliefs; I’ll stand corrected on that as regards marae, but not in the back streets of New Zealand.

         You are totally wrong in suggesting I don’t think Maori culture can offer insight into ways that would bring betterment to humanity. I just got pissed off about the way she talks down and decided to call her on it.
         • neoleftie 8.1.1.1.1

           21 February 2011 at 8:10 pm

           oh nothing implied at all…just keeping the debate wholesome
9. Adele 9

   23 February 2011 at 6:36 am

   Teenaa koe, Jum

   My apologies for the delay in responding to your passive aggressive post.

   Because I live two worldviews I can articulate between the two with relative ease and a measure of expertise. You on the other hand are fixated in one – stuck in the crack of a broken-down CD – jum, jum, jum. Your ongoing rant about “humans holding their humanity in common” has grown from a steaming mass to a veritable maunga of manure. Let me once again attempt to explain why.

   Humanity in common has its roots in western philosophy and is not universally comprehended. From an indigenous perspective, to say “I am human” is a meaningless statement to make; it renders the person incomprehensible and without form. To say “I am Ngaati Awa,” on the other hand, adds flesh to DNA and whakapapa to bone. Thus, is your first conceit – to assume western ideology is meaningful to all.

   So now confronted with difference in social constructs we arrive at the next conceit of the western traditionalist (predominantly white but not necessarily so) and that is to assume the western worldview is the normative. Thus when divergence is encountered the difference is immediately translated as unimportant, a side issue, perverse.

   The third conceit is when the western traditionalist seeks to impose their worldview over others – to assimilate, obfuscate, render impotent, and when all else fails, to make extinct. This is the process of colonisation.

   I am fully aware of the views of white people as they are expressed as the majority opinion, and echo loudly in the auditoriums of power – parliament, policy, finance, corporation, and media (including the blogosphere). Not content with this much percussion, however, you then insist upon more white noise – how are the edicts of a dead white man and a non-dead white woman salient to me as an indigenous person practicing indigeneity. We like to rock to the sounds and rhythms of Oceania – yes, we have our own scholarship and philosophers.

   Finally, I am not talking down to you; I think that you are just having an issue measuring up.
   • Jum 9.1

     24 February 2011 at 1:26 am

     And in the end I will continue to hold my views and you yours and with your definite attempts at talking down, adding in your own ‘veritable maunga of manure’ laced thickly with conceited views of your own importance and using the very words of the traditional society you loathe so much, that is very unlikely to change.

     I’ll remain a human being; you can be whatever you like. And I mean that sincerely.

     I do have a question which no one else ever answers – did Maori colonise other earlier peoples in New Zealand, on the Chatham Islands for instance? Did they take slaves? Did they commit the same atrocities they always blame others for but never themselves?

     It’s fine to take the moral high ground now and utter fine big words and flowing bigotry, but under the skin colour the good and the bad still remains. And to quote your words “to assimilate, obfuscate, render impotent, and when all else fails, to make extinct” Maori certainly did that just as much as every other coloniser throughout history.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 15 February 2011 at 7:42 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS