Maori unity and aspirations

Written By: - Date published: 7:24 am, September 14th, 2012 - 126 comments
Categories: energy, Maori Issues, water - Tags: , , ,

Yesterday’s national hui on water rights has resulted in the best possible outcome for Maori, a decision to present a unified front in the face of National’s divide and rule tactics. Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

Maori speak as one on water rights

A 1000-strong gathering of Maoridom has voted to boycott the Government’s fast-track consultation over asset sales and agreed to a united front on Maori water rights.

In the biggest threat to the Government’s asset sales programme so far, Maori representing some of the country’s biggest and smallest tribes descended on Ngaruawahia’s Turangawaewae Marae for the gathering – a show of strength after the Government rejected a Waitangi Tribunal call for a national hui on water.

The hui, convened by Maoridom’s King Tuheitia, overwhelmingly backed a resolution calling on the Government to halt the sale of power company shares until it had thrashed out a framework recognising Maori proprietary rights in water.

It also backed a resolution for that framework to be agreed before iwi and hapu enter into negotiations with the Crown over their water claims – and warned they could test the case in court if the Government worked around it.

Finally, it agreed that Maori should speak with one voice on the issue – a new body representing Maori interests across the spectrum will be set up to spearhead the negotiations instead.

In related news, “We own the water – Maori King”, and “Ngapuhi lodge claim over wind”. Interesting times for National, as dealing appropriately with these claims is going to enrage their base…

126 comments on “Maori unity and aspirations ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Psycho Milt 1
    14 September 2012 at 7:40 am

    In related news, “We own the water – Maori King”, and “Ngapuhi lodge claim over wind”. Interesting times for National, as dealing appropriately with these claims is going to enrage their base…

    Dealing “appropriately” with those two particular claims mainly involves laughing in the faces of those making them – it’s hard to see that enraging National’s base.

    • RedLogix 1.1
      14 September 2012 at 7:45 am

      On the contrary PM… the ToW and international law is quite clear. The iwi chieftains never ceded any scrap of their indigenous sovereignty and are the legal owners of this land, and all it’s resources.

      The only party here without legitimacy is in fact the New Zealand Crown which can point to no constitution justifying it’s existence.

    • Carol 1.2
      14 September 2012 at 7:47 am

      And once people probably would have laughed if you said to them that anyone owned the air waves….

      It shouldn’t seem so funny to the right wing capitalism. Capitalism will aim to own whatever they can…. patents, copyright, ideas…. on and on it goes.

      • just saying 1.2.1
        14 September 2012 at 8:42 am

        You’re quite right Carol, and so it will prove to be, over time I’m sure. Māori are magnificent long-term thinkers and campaigners.

        My only fear is that, once it proves impossible to stop the process, the Pākeha elite will support a Māori elite in concentrating the resources into the hands of the few according to neoliberal practice, and essentially privatising them.

        • Enough is Enough 1.2.1.1
          14 September 2012 at 10:40 am

          Absolutley

          I have disagreed with this from the very start. It is one thing compensating a group of New Zealanders who have been wronged. It is another thing privatising New Zealand’s resources. Claiming ownership is a capitalist idea and should be resisted by those on the left.

          I don’t think water, air, wind, oil should be capable of being owned privatley.

          • weka 1.2.1.1.1
            14 September 2012 at 11:38 am

            IMO the reason that Maori are talking about ‘owning’ water etc is because they’ve been forced into this concept by resistance of the dominant culture to settle treaty claims. Ownership in the way that you fear is a Pakeha way of working, but not a traditional Maori one as far as I can tell. Non-Maori, Pakeha in particular, would do well to learn from Maori and other cultures different ways of recognising relationship to nature. Then we will have some moral ground to stand on, plus some actual understanding of what is going on. We might even be able to come up with some solutions that don’t rely on Maori having to do all the hard work.
             

          • weka 1.2.1.1.2
            14 September 2012 at 11:41 am

            Oh, and ownership by iwi isn’t private ownership, so long as iwi have a governance role. It’s more akin to the state owning water. Which they do (or think they do).

            If iwi end up with ownership rights, I’d like to see some limitations put on that eg not being able to sell to the private market. But those same limits would need to be made across the board.

            • just saying 1.2.1.1.2.1
              14 September 2012 at 12:55 pm

              Oh, and ownership by iwi isn’t private ownership, so long as iwi have a governance role. It’s more akin to the state owning water.

              Sort of, along with kaitiatitanga and specific usage rights.
              My fear about this process, in which Māori are as you say being forced into defending their rights from a more Pākeha concept of ownership, is the danger that it could turn out to be a step towards privatisation of these resources further down the track.

              Drinkable water may well become a seriously diminishing resource as climate change bites deeper, and even now it is in much shorter supply worldwide, than most people realise. It’s also essential to all living things. Private ownership and control would be extremely lucrative…

            • OneTrack 1.2.1.1.2.2
              15 September 2012 at 1:57 pm

              “If iwi end up with ownership rights, I’d like to see some limitations put on that eg not being able to sell to the private market.”

              Moari have declared full and complete ownership ie they will OWN the water. That means they could do whatever they want with it. Including building a chinese dam just above the Benmore power station?

              They really aren’t planning on limiting their ownership based on what the visitors say.

              You should start listening to what they are actually saying and doing instead of blindly cheering them on because you want them to stop the asset sales (in the face of a democratically elected government. But democracy is so overrated isnt it.)

      • Psycho Milt 1.2.2
        14 September 2012 at 12:29 pm

        And once people probably would have laughed if you said to them that anyone owned the air waves….

        They still should, because you can’t own a radio frequency any more than you can own gravity, or a colour. A governing body with the power to enforce compliance can sell you an exclusive licence to broadcast on a set of frequencies, but it doesn’t own them. I can picture a deal in which Maori are involved in decisions on commercial use of water, but that isn’t owning it by a long way. And wind? FFS, why not a claim for all the Maori oxygen these Pakehas are breathing while they’re at it?

        • Uturn 1.2.2.1
          14 September 2012 at 12:55 pm

          Claiming for oxygen would be contrary to a maori perspective, as long as pakeha didn’t first attempt to do it and in doing so attempt to rob maori of their spirit. Since once air enters the body it mixes with the life force and becomes sacred, it too cannot be owned, but it can be protected. In plain English, the act of pre-empting a malicious act is unacceptable while within the confines of a relatively stable partnership. If things get to the point where a private pakeha company or entity is responsible for local air quality, maori should claim rights to the air, and using all the flaws of a useless language, win ownership and the things ownership bring. So it’s up to pakeha really: wise up, realise your systems have power over you, not the other way round or maori will be forced to save you from yourself.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1
            14 September 2012 at 1:40 pm

            So it’s up to pakeha really: wise up, realise your systems have power over you,

            QFT

            The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature and the wealth that they require to live.

            • TheContrarian 1.2.2.1.1.1
              14 September 2012 at 4:15 pm

              “The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature”

              O Rly? 

              • McFlock …
                14 September 2012 at 4:32 pm

                You really ought to read some Marx. You don’t need to agree with it, but you’d have a bit more of an idea of what some people were talking about.
                     
                Hell, that’s why I sat through a semester of Neitschze.

                • TheContrarian …
                  14 September 2012 at 4:37 pm

                  I am familiar with Marx.
                  But someone vapidly repeating the idea that ‘capitalism’ (whatever Draco wishes that to mean) alienates the workers/plebs/proles/masses from nature is an assertion which I am querying by asking “O rly?”

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    14 September 2012 at 4:57 pm

                    you see it all the time in work places. Yes, rly.

                    • mike e …
                      15 September 2012 at 10:35 am

                      Its funny how trools always have to have the last say even though they have lost the argument ,
                      The incontinaryan you should just go to Pete Georges site he will agree with everything you say,
                      We know your modes operandi and that is to be cynical about everything political if you weren’t so serious about your mission I would believe you were telling the truth.

                    • OneTrack …
                      15 September 2012 at 1:58 pm

                      Got a link for that?

                  • McFlock …
                    14 September 2012 at 5:00 pm

                    Funnily enough, Marx wrote a few books on the general concept of alienation of the workers from each other, society, the means of production and indeed nature.
                     
                    If you are familiar with Marx as you claim then you already know the basic justification for suggesting the concept of alienation. If you disagree with the concept, offer a rebuttal. I for one am not going to give you a “timewasters only” enrollment into  POLS112. 
                          
                    Of course, if you a) have no idea what you’re talking about and have a dickish way of asking for explanations; and/or b)are just waving your dick around the pub for the hell of it (you? surely not); then go suck an egg.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 8:04 pm

                      You can suck fucking eggs, McFlock.

                      I am not asking someone to explain ‘What Marx said’.

                      Draco said it, he can answer it.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 9:02 pm

                      Got that.
                      Rather than the 150-odd year old and well-discussed concept of capitalism causing alienation, you want to know if DTB has invented a completely new theory of alienation.
                               
                      Not that you’re desperate for attention, at all.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 10:19 pm

                      “you want to know if DTB has invented a completely new theory of alienation.”

                      No.
                      I’d like to say ‘good guess’ but…

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 10:42 pm

                      Well, either DTB is saying that capitalism causes alienation in the well-trodden marxist sense, or he’s using the term in a new, non-traditional way.
                         
                      You reckon you’re familiar with the marxist sense, which leaves…

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 10:44 pm

                      Well, then lets get Draco up to defend that remark.

                      Chop, chop.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 10:49 pm

                      Dude, you haven’t attacked it, so there’s no need for anyone to “defend” that remark. Seems to be a perfectly adequate use of a tried and true political science expression.
                                
                       

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 10:54 pm

                      Draco says “The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature…” so surely he can justify that statement without needing his weasel toothed hunchbacked lackey rolling in and saying ‘because Marx said’.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:00 pm

                      Why would it need explanation if you were actually familiar with Marx, as you claimed? It’s like “dialectic”, “wage slavery” or “thesis synthesis antithesis”. 
                           
                      You could just have said that you didn’t understand the concept. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:04 pm

                      Because Marx said so, you mean

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:11 pm

                      Yes. Let’s reduce all the concepts in das kapital to “because marx said so”.
                         
                      I mean, we could read it a bit more closely and look at the commodification of worker behaviour, time and interactions so they are controlled by the owners of capital rather than the individual worker, but your summary is in such lovely intellectually bite-sized portions. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:27 pm

                      Yes that is all well and good. Well done.
                      Nice repetition.

                      “The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature”

                      How? Which capitalist system? All facets of capitalism? Would a capitalist system that exemplifies one’s association with nature fall in the same category? Is capitalism a single entity that can be explained, and discarded, in one fell swoop by the quotes of a 150 year old German?

                    • McFlock …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:46 pm

                      Fuck. ok, pols112 it is.

                      How?
                      By turning everything into a commodity transferable in exchange for capital. Power resides in the possession of capital, so the rich have more control over everything and the abject poor have none.        

                      Which capitalist system?
                      Any system that commodifies anything alienates workers from the things that are commodified.

                      All facets of capitalism?
                      Would a capitalist system that exemplifies one’s association with nature fall in the same category?
                      You do know what capitalism is, right? Do you really think that such a system could logically exist?

                      Is capitalism a single entity that can be explained, and discarded, in one fell swoop by the quotes of a 150 year old German?
                      Only in the same way that Newtonian physics is still valid to this day in explaining car crashes or football, rather than astrophysics or nuclear power. But Neo-Marxism is a 300-level course and it’s unlikely you’ll pass the prerequisites.. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      14 September 2012 at 11:59 pm

                      “Only in the same way that Newtonian physics is still valid to this day in explaining car crashes or football, rather than astrophysics or nuclear power.”

                      Yeah, you do know that while Newton’s physics are still valid that in the intervening years there are many many aspects that have proven invalid and that Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Eisenstein Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. While Newton remains a legend, his ideas are not above reproach…like Marx.

                      “You do know what capitalism is, right? Do you really think that such a system could logically exist?”

                      Yes it can logically exist.

                      But why don’t you answer a specific instead rattling off from Das Kapital.

                      “The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature”

                      How? Can you explain this sentence without the Marxian repetition?

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:09 am

                      Real simple words then:
                             
                      H needs money to buy needs and wants.
                      To get money H tries to convince other people that I can provide their needs and wants. Or H  tries  to persuade them that they need or want something H provides, when they don’t particularly need or want it.
                             
                      The capitalist principle encourages H to view people, things, and nature as resources to gain money. They are not valued in themselves by H, but are instead valued according to whether other people are prepared to pay for them. If it looks like others are, then H wants to possess a piece to be able to sell for money – like recent Iwi water issues. Or super-trawlers. Or strip-mines. The driving force is not regard for the resource, but a simple desire for more money, because other people want them, because other people think they will get money from them.
                               
                      In a capitalist society, everyone and everthing is someone else’s mark.
                       

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:12 am

                      “The capitalist systems we work under have been designed so as to disassociate people from nature”

                      So no response then?

                      “In a capitalist society, everyone and everthing is someone else’s mark.”

                      Heh:
                      A) Remove capitalist society
                      B)..?…
                      C) Utopia!

                      You speak as if the worlds ills are sole capitalist. Please….naive much?

                      “The capitalist principle encourages H to view people, things, and nature as resources to gain money”

                      Replace ‘Money” with knowledge or peace.

                      ho ho ho

                      But before I go:

                      ‘Yeah, you do know that while Newton’s physics are still valid that in the intervening years there are many many aspects that have proven invalid and that Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Eisenstein Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. While Newton remains a legend, his ideas are not above reproach…like Marx.”

                      Don’t forget

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:24 am

                      You don’t need relativity theory to examine a car crash, dipshit.
                           
                      Alienation is at that level.
                       
                      To continue the metaphor, Dutch Sandwiches and toxic assets are the equivalent of storing a few extra used fuel rods in your coastal earthquake-zone reactor’s storage tanks. 
                                 
                       

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:34 am

                      “You don’t need relativity theory to examine a car crash, dipshit.”

                      You don’t need a slavish adherence to Marxism to understand the world either, you ball-bagged Walrus raper.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:37 am

                      yeah, right – and capitalism is the way to find “knowledge or peace”. 

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:41 am

                      A) Remove capitalist society
                      B)..?…
                      C) Utopia!

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:48 am

                      Well, wikipedia every political or economic “ism” other than “capitalism” and “communism” and you’d have the merest fraction of the options that fall into your (once again intellectually bite-sized) option “B”. Personally, I’m a democratic socialist, but whatever rocks your boat.
                             
                      Seriously – go do some study yourself. For someone allegedly familiar with Marx, you knew fuck-all about that. Rather than being a capitalist because you can’t conceive anything other than “capitalism” or “communism”, do some reading and you’ll find the options are limitless.
                           
                      But then there’s not really any money is such self-directed study, so folks tend to be alienated from political thoughts more complex than  “them:us, capitalism:communism”.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:49 am

                      Hey, McFlock, you’re probably figuring out by now why I just ignore the idiot. He will just ask questions that will, quite literally, take you round and round in circles.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:53 am

                      yeah, but the “The capitalist principle encourages H to view people, things, and nature as resources to gain knowledge or peace” is comedy gold.  
                         
                      Ah well, best off to bed, anyway.  The dick will be back soon, same bat-shit stupid theme, same bulletproof and completely undeserved ego.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 12:58 am

                      Call me crazy, McFlock, but I am pretty sure it was me arguing this entire thread that here was more to it than mere “Capitalism vs. Communism” and that there were varying shades of each.

                      Somehow, weirdly, you seem to have misunderstood this.

                      And Daco, thanks for coming out! You’ve been missed, yet much discussed. Care to explain your thinking?

                      The masses await…

                      “Ah well, best off to bed, anyway. The dick will be back soon, same bat-shit stupid theme, same bulletproof and completely undeserved ego.”

                      please, McFlock, what you get up to in your own bedroom is no concern of ours. Heh.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      15 September 2012 at 8:23 am

                      Call me crazy, McFlock, but I am pretty sure it was me arguing this entire thread that here was more to it than mere “Capitalism vs. Communism” and that there were varying shades of each.

                      Oh. I took your comment of “O rly” to be justifiably ridiculing the ideas that capitalism was designed and that the designers had as one of their main purposes the alienation of people from nature. As well as prompting readers to consider that, despite anything POLS 112 might say, the idea that capitalism is responsible for the alienation of people from nature may be fairly convincingly refuted by the failure of people in non-capitalist industrial societies to display the quasi-religious view of nature prevalent in primitive tribal societies. On the other hand, maybe I was reading kind of a lot into it…

                    • felix …
                      15 September 2012 at 8:58 am

                      I’ve come to the conclusion that TheContrarian just isn’t smart enough to bother with.

                      Seriously, has anyone ever seen one of his trools that didn’t end up with him proving beyond all doubt that he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about?

                      Bit sad really.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 9:41 am

                      Well, get a fucking moderator to block me you worthless, scum ridden, ham fisted cunt

                      [lprent: You have requested this before. But we do it on behaviour not on request. ]

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      15 September 2012 at 9:45 am

                      Good call, TheConservative. You won’t be missed.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      15 September 2012 at 9:50 am

                      TheConservative? Really, that’s the best you can come up with?

                      So, The Standard is a labour party mouth-piece right? Why was it hosted on Labour Party servers? Is it still labour funded?

                      Where is Lynn when you need her

                      [lprent: It wasn’t. The Labour party as far as I’m aware has never owned any servers on the internet – they certainly don’t have any particular expertise to run them.

                      However the site was on some servers back in Jan 2008 for about 3 weeks that I’d gotten room on from a activist I knew when we outgrew my home systems. The use of those servers had been donated to the NZLP by an ISP. The NZLP had given their use over to my friend to do what he willed with them because he had some expertise. It could have as easily been a green party server, or one from a company, or as it eventually wound up – my paying $70 per month for a virtual server. I was just looking for room on a server with faster bandwidth.

                      Bill English was lying when he said that the NZLP ran this site, but I guess you aren’t conspicuous about checking who said what. Something that he still hasn’t apologised for.

                      You really are grasping at straws to get banned aren’t you? Are you having problems with your habit of being curiously lacking at completion? Can I help? I could just complete your comments for you when you leave them dangling and limp.. ]

                    • OneTrack …
                      15 September 2012 at 2:00 pm

                      And Soviet Russia was a natural nirvana where the environment was the most important thing to be considered.

                    • OneTrack …
                      15 September 2012 at 2:03 pm

                      “Well, get a fucking moderator to block me you worthless, scum ridden, ham fisted cunt”

                      Dont hold back – tell us what you really think 🙂

  2. Dr Terry 2
    14 September 2012 at 7:42 am

    Key and his lot are pretty sure to try to do their utmost to “work around it”. I wonder what will be Sharples punishment for his “disobedience” toward the dictator? He was “told” not to attend the hui not “asked”. But even Key might pay scant attention to anyone bearing the title “King”.

    • Carol 2.1
      14 September 2012 at 7:55 am

      Yes, I note in Watkins article on Stuff, she’s still playing a bit of the divide card, referring to some continuing tensions between “powerful” iwi leaders and smaller tribal groups:

      That process could take months – and the first test of Maori unity will come as early as today when the powerful iwi chairmen forum meets in Ngaruawahia.
      …
      The influence of the group was the focus of a clear undercurrent of unease among smaller tribes.

      • A.Ziffel 2.1.1
        14 September 2012 at 10:24 am

        Maori speak as one on water rights*
        * Ngai Tahu not included

        • grumpy 2.1.1.1
          14 September 2012 at 12:08 pm

          Ngai Tahu not included because last time “all iwi spoke as one” it was to get their hands on Ngai Tahu’s fishing rights. Jealousy that Ngai Tahu had too great a share based on it’s coastline.

          Infighting will stuff this up too.

        • A.Ziffel 2.1.1.2
          14 September 2012 at 1:27 pm

          Also, from the Herald –
          Other iwi, such as Tuhoe, who have accepted a Crown offer for their historical grievances were not at the king’s hui. Tuhoe’s Tamati Kruger has told the Herald that water is an issue between the tribe and the government only.

        • Populuxe1 2.1.1.3
          15 September 2012 at 7:48 pm

          Nor urban Maori unaffiliated with any Iwi as far as I can tell…

    • ianmac 2.2
      14 September 2012 at 10:26 am

      On Te Kaea, Maori TV last night it showed the closing words of Mr Sharples’ speech to the hui. Hardly fair to judge on the last few sentences but really for a leader it was un-inspiring. He did say he was the meat in the sandwich. “One slice was white. One slice was brown. And I am in the middle.” (paraphrased)What? In the middle??? Hardly wholehearted support for the Maori cause?

  3. DropDead 3
    14 September 2012 at 8:53 am

    Does this mean Maori own 95% of my urine?

    • Carol 3.1
      14 September 2012 at 8:57 am

      No, because it’s not about ownership, but rights.

      And guess what? You don’t have the right to just pee anywhere you like whenever you like!

      • Enough is Enough 3.1.1
        14 September 2012 at 10:48 am

        It is about ownership. Look at the links.

        • Uturn 3.1.1.1
          14 September 2012 at 12:03 pm

          This is the “lost in translation” part. There is no pakeha version of the connection moari have to natural resources, so “ownership” is the closest term used so that English speaking people can have a word to talk about.

          The problem is further confused because there is no pakeha version of the physical and practical manifestation of the relationship between maori and the natural world, so within a capitalist framework, the actions of “ownership” are the closest alternative.

          In modern pakeha world, there is owned and not owned. In maori world there are several further degrees of everything and nothing. How can they possibly communicate that gap with pakeha words? In pakeha world, a person defines who they are, one is what one has, to own is to control, to believe in control is to believe things can be earned. In moari world, to be is to be part of a natural system.

          The problem is further confused because pakeha, having first forced maori to use their rudimentary labelling systems, then deny that other realities exist and blame maori for being unable to express those realities in terms they can understand. Then pakeha deny that there is even anything such as maori, proof they say, is that some maori live in cities, have jobs, families and TV’s. So pakeha complains that to own means to profit, and that profit means to have control and that power is only ever used for oppression and graft if not used by them. They see the potential profit, they see it is not owned by them and something seems very wrong – they ask, how was this earned? If it was not earned, it was not controlled and if it was not controlled it was not owned and if it was not owned, then we cannot be! Then they forget about how time works and use a distorted present to measure an imagined future. Then they start freaking out about who is who and how much blood quantum is in each person. All the while, maori have not moved.

          Maori do not claim to own water, but they say they must be allowed to “own” the water in order to maintain their spiritual/cultural/now legalised links to it within our current economic parameters and definitions. Maori didn’t bring it up, pakeha wanted to take water as a tool for forwarding foreign economic policy, forgetting their obligations, and maori said no thanks. It’s not their fault pakeha had a memory lapse. If someone wants to stop maori “owning” water, to avoid challenging the basis for the “I am” in pakeha perspective, they’ll have to considerably adjust pakeha systems. Once that is done nothing will have changed in real terms, but at least people will be able to see what they’re looking at

          • Psycho Milt 3.1.1.1.1
            14 September 2012 at 6:57 pm

            Nothing like a generous dollop of racial stereotyping to enrich a debate…

          • weka 3.1.1.1.2
            14 September 2012 at 7:38 pm

            Very good Uturn, thanks.

          • OneTrack 3.1.1.1.3
            15 September 2012 at 2:08 pm

            They are using the english word “ownership”, not some other maori expression. Its english meaning is clearly what they now mean.

          • Populuxe1 3.1.1.1.4
            15 September 2012 at 8:08 pm

            Several centuries of landscape painting and poetry, and indeed the whole Romantic movement, and a shitload of classical mythology would seem to a disagree with you on Pakeha/Europeans not having any connection to the land that wasn’t ownership, and in practice I’d debate there’s much practical difference between everybody using state assets and traditional Maori concepts of Kaitiakitanga.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.4.1
              15 September 2012 at 8:31 pm

              would seem to a disagree with you on Pakeha/Europeans not having any connection to the land that wasn’t ownership,

              Sure there’s a connection. God given dominion over the land and all its wealth both above and below it. And if there are primitives on that land, they belong to you too, to do with as you see fit.

              • Populuxe1 …
                15 September 2012 at 8:56 pm

                You really don’t get the whole “art” thing, do you CV? Your typical negative distortion and misrepresentation as usual. A painter can still paint a mountain without wanting to own it or in any way troubling whoever lives there.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28philosophy%29
                 

                • Colonial Viper …
                  15 September 2012 at 9:24 pm

                  I thought you were talking about an entire philosophical and spiritual outlook on the land. One which encompasses a whole value system and mythology. The connection with the land I described predicated centuries of western global colonial activity.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    15 September 2012 at 10:35 pm

                    One of the most annoyingly stupid things about Marxist analysis is the assumption that western philosophy is monolithic. Funnily enough the West is the only imperialist culture that got around of its own accord to realising slavery was wrong.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 September 2012 at 10:42 pm

                      Yay, a good imperialist culture. Wait, that sounds a bit wrong…

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      15 September 2012 at 10:57 pm

                      Funnily enough the West is the only imperialist culture that got around of its own accord to realising slavery was wrong.

                      Some elements of the west recognised that slavery was wrong. They had to defeat by force other parts who still wanted slavery.

                      And if I look around now, it seems today that the ruling class (including Apple board members) have no problem with slavery whatsoever.

            • Adele 3.1.1.1.4.2
              16 September 2012 at 11:19 am

              Populuxe

              The whole ‘romantic’ version of nature is merely colonisation by aesthetic. A depiction of the natural world viewed through a kaleidoscope of European philosophical and intellectual angst. The romantics sought to ‘capture’ an individualised perception of the natural world ‘subordinate’ it to a romanticised interpretation – with an intended outcome of patronage. With patronage came ‘ownership’ of the interpretation. On our back door, the depictions of the ‘noble savage’ emphasises this distorted perspective.

              Depicting nature does not necessarily correlate with an intimate connection with the natural world. That would be akin to saying that wonderful depictions of women correlates with an abiding reverence for women. I think not.

              The relationship Māori have with the natural world is through whakapapa thus the natural world is depicted as tūpuna. Papa-tū-ā-nuku is the female element; Rangi-nui-ā-tamaku is the male element, Tāwhiri-matea, the weather; Tangaroa-mātua; the seas etc.

              Also our relationship with the natural world is specific not generalised – again established through whakapapa. I whakapapa to Tarawera me Pūtauaki – two mountains. I whakapapa to Tarawera me Te Rangitaiki – two rivers. The whakapapa relationships I share with these particular aspects of the environment resonate more profoundly than any relationship I might have with say Mitre Peak or the Waikato River.

              Māori views in respect to the natural world have been dismissively denigrated as animistic mumbo-jumbo. Some of these people also profess a love for nature. Pūkana to that

              • Plastic Tolstoy …
                16 September 2012 at 2:21 pm

                Nicely said. I would add that if Western culture truly did have any kind of respect for the natural world there would be no need for those of us who do give a s**t to be constantly defending it.

              • Populuxe1 …
                16 September 2012 at 6:47 pm

                The whole ‘romantic’ version of nature is merely colonisation by aesthetic. A depiction of the natural world viewed through a kaleidoscope of European philosophical and intellectual angst. The romantics sought to ‘capture’ an individualised perception of the natural world ‘subordinate’ it to a romanticised interpretation – with an intended outcome of patronage. With patronage came ‘ownership’ of the interpretation. On our back door, the depictions of the ‘noble savage’ emphasises this distorted perspective.

                Post-structural babble and circular reasoning. Being individualised, Adele, doesn’t make it any less valid or less deep attachment. To argue that something is only authentic if couched in your terms sounds every bit as chauvinistic and absurd as me dithering over English equivalents for Tino rangatiratanga sounds to you – it’s just as offensive. Would I have a closer attachment to the landscape if I believed Yahweh made Adam from clay and breathed life into his nostrils, or if I believed Prometheus did much the same, or if I believed that Odin made my ancestors from two trees? You dishonour 150 years of my ancestors buried in the earth of these islands to say that I don’t have a deep emotional and spiritual connection to this land. How can you look at a Colin McCahon painting and even think such nonsense. Such mana pissing patches are tiresome.

                Here’s some Wordsworth – pick apart his selfish neuroses as you will: http://www.bartleby.com/101/536.html

                • Populuxe1 …
                  17 September 2012 at 3:02 am

                  Well Adele, my email tells me you have replied, but I can’t see it here, so I’ll assume my computer is stuffing up and just quote you in full and address you paragraph by paragraph.

                  Author: Adele
                  Comment:
                  Populuxe

                  Firstly, I proclaim an indigenous worldview therefore I do not subscribe to western philosophical or intellectual traditions.  An indigenous discourse is a counter text to the western tradition.

                  Ignoring the fact that the “western tradition” largely evolved from tribal ones. Not that there really is much of an “indigenous discourse” except with the West, because inevitably the indigenous hierarchy is partly based on the restriction of knowledge and privilege. Discourse as a concept is part of that whole “white privilege”, University thing.

                  Secondly, I stopped reading dead white men some time ago so I won’t be reading Wordsworth – and besides I have already suffered a fairly heavy dose of him and others.

                  So much for discourse then – baby, bathwater etc….

                  Thirdly, your pseudo intellectualising of my position is worthy of Babel itself, and the faux outrage exposes instead an angry white guy – a popular luxury item in America still – although apparently now suffering from regression.

                  Why shouldn’t I be angry – you keep insulting me and my heritage? What else is the correct response?

                  Attempting to use European High Art to make a persuasive argument for European connectedness to nature world was always a leaky boat to row.  Actually it’s a Rena on a rock, and a totally mis-placed sentiment.  The connectedness can be found in  European Folk Art – the art of the pagan, the art of the peasant, and the art of craft.

                  Yep, you’re right – them too. However that doesn’t diminish European High Art, or anything else for that matter. Basically you are being as dismissive of my traditions as I am of supernatural worldviews. Yo Pot, this is Kettle, whazzup my nizzle?

                  I completely accept the intimate and spiritual relationship that the Scot may have to Scotland, the Irish to Éire, the English to England, and the French to France.  People indigenous to their lands share a common understanding and generally will relate to their lands and waterways in the same way as Māori.

                  By that logic your spiritual relationship is with Hawaiki, or Taiwan perhaps. By the way, obviously it’s a touchy subject but it seems relevant – I am assuming that you must be at least in some small part Pakeha. Do you just ignore this? Are your Pakeha ancestors not part of your whakapapa? Do you not also have a spiritual connection to where they came from? Does that Pakeha part of you not have a spiritual connection to this land? Or are you just cherrypicking tikanga to suit your prejudices?
                   

                  To say that you have a deeply spiritual and emotional connection to these lands reads like a void.  I am not spiritually or emotionally connected to these places because I have dead buried therein (and there are many).  I relate to the natural world as a complex living entity that is forever animated, has many names, and is an interconnected reality inclusive of me.   As for Colin McCahon are you suggesting that his landscape paintings are better than the real thing?

                  Well your responses read a lot like someone being a hateful bitch, but we really shouldn’t be making judgements on a person’s spiritual psyche based on posts on a blog. At times I also relate to the world  as a complex living thing – sometimes I call it Gaia, sometimes the Ecosphere, sometimes it’s just the whole beautiful majesty of the world of which I am part. No, I’m not saying McCahon’s paintings are better than the real thing, I’m saying they’re a profound spiritual response to the land – don’t be deliberately obtuse.

                  • Adele …
                    17 September 2012 at 7:47 am

                    Populuxe

                    I deleted the post as it contained links which weren’t linking. I will respond to your response later this evening.

                • Adele …
                  17 September 2012 at 10:38 pm

                  Populuxe

                  This is the original post with the links embedded within. I can’t get them to link properly and I am hoping the moderators may once again be generously disposed in this respect.

                  Populuxe
                  Firstly, I proclaim an indigenous worldview therefore I do not subscribe to western philosophical or intellectual traditions. An indigenous discourse is a counter text to the western tradition.

                  Secondly, I stopped reading dead white men some time ago so I won’t be reading Wordsworth – and besides I have already suffered a fairly heavy dose of him and others.

                  Thirdly, your pseudo intellectualising of my position is worthy of Babel itself, and the faux outrage exposes instead an angry white guy – a popular luxury item in America still – although apparently now suffering from regression.

                  Attempting to use European High Art to make a persuasive argument for European connectedness to nature was always a leaky boat to row. Actually it’s a Rena on a rock, and a totally mis-placed sentiment. The connectedness can be found in European Folk Art – the art of the pagan, the art of the peasant, and the art of craft.

                  I completely accept the intimate and spiritual relationship that the Scot may have to Scotland, the Irish to Éire, the English to England, and the French to France. People indigenous to their lands share a common understanding and generally will relate to their lands and waterways in the same way as Māori.

                  To say that you have a deeply spiritual and emotional connection to these lands reads like a void. I am not spiritually or emotionally connected to these places because I have dead buried therein (and there are many). I relate to the natural world as a complex living entity that is forever animated, has many names, and is an interconnected reality inclusive of me. As for Colin McCahon are you suggesting that his landscape paintings are better than the real thing?

                  [lprent: There was a trailing single quote on the URL that was preventing the system recognizing them as links. Computers tend to be the ultimate in pedantic syntax intolerance. Fixed. ]

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    17 September 2012 at 10:54 pm

                    So basically a bunch of cliches and stereotypes generated by the academic principles made possible by “white privilege” in the first place… Which should imply that “white privilege” contains the seeds of it’s own deconstruction, which would make it fairly unusual and able to ethically evolve of its own accord.

                    • Adele …
                      18 September 2012 at 1:45 am

                      Populuxe

                      Unlike you, I work long hours, so I have limited time to indulge your superior notions of intellectual capacity.

                      I thought to give careful consideration to your diatribe and was in fact working through a response. I now think not. I cannot afford the time to engage in eye-ball plucking tedium..

                      Why should I continue to flabberjabber with a fulcrum-less contrivance such as yourself. Your approach to conceptual matters is so sickly shallow – I could aquaplane into the ads on your stuff.

                      So sally forth in blissful delusion. My white privileged thinking cares not a jot.

              • Psycho Milt …
                16 September 2012 at 7:44 pm

                Māori views in respect to the natural world have been dismissively denigrated as animistic mumbo-jumbo.

                Or in a lot of cases, correctly recognised as religious superstition and dismissed on the same basis as Whitey’s religious superstitions.

                • Adele …
                  17 September 2012 at 7:52 am

                  A Psycho Spell

                  Yo Mother Earth here me squawk
                  This dude Psycho is making me baulk
                  Curse him with lice or curse him the fleas
                  Or simply ignore his white whiney wheeze

                  Yo Mother Earth I beg your indulgence
                  Maybe a wee bout of incontinence
                  Nah, better still, let him sleep, to awaken
                  Brown, poor, and clutching a mountain

    • OneTrack 3.3
      15 September 2012 at 2:05 pm

      If you drank their water, then, yes, it probably does. They may charge a fee for you polluting their water.

  4. Carol 4
    14 September 2012 at 9:01 am

    Interesting to see some of the headlines – from google news collection of most recent articles on the issue:

    http://news.google.co.nz/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=djjAKKYORmH-fdMalFcmIl3BIu7tM&topic=h

    Top 2 articles:

    ‘We own the water’ – Maori King
    Otago Daily Times – ‎51 minutes ago‎

    Maori King Tuheitia challenged the Prime Minister’s dictum that no one owns the water by ending his national hui on Maori water rights last night with the declaration, “We have always owned the water!” The hui resolved to fund a Maori Council court ..

    Maori to work together to delay asset sales
    TVNZ – ‎43 minutes ago‎

    Maori have vowed to work together in an attempt to delay the sale of state-owned assets. Hundreds of Maori leaders who attended a national hui on water rights at Ngaruawahia yesterday made it clear they will not talk to the Crown until the water rights …

    The first above plays JonKey’s game of making it about outright ownership of water. The second misleads by claiming the Maori Hui primary aim is to delay asset sales, rather than negotiate over water rights.

  5. idlegus 5
    14 September 2012 at 9:03 am

    but the msm been telling us it would be impossible for them to reach consensus, like they would know. theres def a lot more work to do for these tribes, but as history shows with these things its only by grouping together that we can get anywhere, divided we are toast. & yes, maori will play the long game, so what if it pisses people off, whats new? i cant beleive im hearing the ‘if theres a flood or hurricane do i get to redress from maori for damage’ meme over & over, why are the ppls arguments who oppose maori rights so piss weak? coz they stupid (& maybe a bit racist).

    • David H 5.1
      14 September 2012 at 11:21 am

      ‘if theres a flood or hurricane do i get to redress from maori for damage’

      No you do what you have always done ring the EQC and then your insurance company. Jeezuz people are always trying to cloud the issues.

  6. Steve Wrathall 6
    14 September 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Just wondering what would happen if a Labour-led government had been elected on a clear platform of implementing a policy, and if this policy was then blocked by a feudal elite. You guys would be cool with that…right?

    • Te Reo Putake 6.1
      14 September 2012 at 1:30 pm

      Steve, I’m not sure it’s sure its polite to call the Queen and the Governor General a feudal elite, but if it ever happens, then I’m sure ‘us guys’ will have something interesting to say.

      • Steve Wrathall 6.1.1
        14 September 2012 at 2:03 pm

        Well, Liz & Co, are a feudal elite, but they aren’t about to block any law AFAIK, and if they did it would probably cause our becoming a republic.

        But it seems that the part of the political spectrum that claims to represent the “people” have no probs with this feudal court in Ngauruawahui vetoing the will of a parliament elected by the “people”.

        • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1
          14 September 2012 at 2:30 pm

          What veto, Steve?
           
          While it would be terrific if the tangata whenua did have a veto over legislation that negatively impacts them, as part of the treaty partnership, that isn’t actually the case. Yesterday’s hui has merely confirmed that iwi and hapu are going to test the decision to sell and to find out whether they have a financial interest in a related matter (water). That’s perfectly normal behaviour, isn’t it? People challenge the government all the time, both on the streets and in the courts.
           
          But if democracy, and the rule of law, isn’t your thing, well, bad luck.

          • Steve Wrathall 6.1.1.1.1
            14 September 2012 at 3:26 pm

            Oh great! How about letting the top 10% of income earners have a veto on any legislation that negatively impacts on them

            • thatguynz 6.1.1.1.1.1
              14 September 2012 at 3:32 pm

              Have you possibly thought Steve that they already do?
               
              Perhaps not 10%, perhaps 1%, perhaps 0.1% but the point stands..

            • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1.1.2
              14 September 2012 at 3:33 pm

              They already do, Steve. It’s called the Key government.

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1.3
              14 September 2012 at 3:34 pm

              how about making sure that folk actually own something before they sell it? The principle applies to cars and jewellery just as much as state assets.

        • thatguynz 6.1.1.2
          14 September 2012 at 2:50 pm

          Hmm let me see….
           
          Were there protests in the streets about the government selling assets?   Yes.
           
          Were there protests in the streets about Maori having a hui to discuss ownership/custodial rights over water?   Hmmm No..
           
          Enough said?

    • mike e 6.2
      15 September 2012 at 10:41 am

      Steve the feudal masters did do that back in 1984 funny that!
      Orwellian slip their Steve!

  7. Dv 7
    14 September 2012 at 1:18 pm

    >clear platform of implementing a policy,
    The election result was hardly a clear mandate. the Nacts only got about 35% of the electoral vote

    >policy was then blocked by a feudal elite

    who are the feudal elite to which you refer?

    • Steve Wrathall 7.1
      14 September 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Nat + ACT + UF = 49.0%. This stuff isn’t hard to look up.

      • McFlock 7.1.1
        14 September 2012 at 2:13 pm

        Two points:
        The “35%” would have been an allusion to the alienated 20-odd percent who are so uninspired by our current politicians that they felt none were worth their vote;
        49% is not a clear mandate. It is not even a majority. The power nactuf have is due to two rotten boroughs,  one of which is occupied by someone who habitually signs legal documents without reading them, just in case they are false declarations.

        • Steve Wrathall 7.1.1.1
          14 September 2012 at 3:09 pm

          Counting the non-votes as against asset sales is also disingenuous. They had every opportunity to register their support for one of the anti-asset sales parties. They did not.

          • Dv 7.1.1.1.1
            14 September 2012 at 3:17 pm

            But you counted them for., or at least 49% of then.

            DUH

          • McFlock 7.1.1.1.2
            14 September 2012 at 3:32 pm

            no comment about railroading legislation through when one only has 49% of the vote, then?
                   
            If the tories can do that, then I guess it’s fine to just appropriate and profit off someone else’s property, then?

      • Dv 7.1.2
        14 September 2012 at 2:24 pm

        Nope that was who voted, not enrolled to vote!!!

        Who are the elite Steve?

      • mike e 7.1.3
        15 September 2012 at 10:43 am

        1million disenfranchised voters Ratstail.

      • mike e 7.1.4
        15 September 2012 at 10:52 am

        SW Holyoake and Muldoon had a bigger majority when he wanted to raise Manapouri!
        Helen Clark had a majority when Shane Arden drove his fergie up the steps of parliament over the fart tax!
        Spin and more BS Steve no one is allowed to upset your Party of one!

  8. Fortran 8
    14 September 2012 at 1:38 pm

    Please, what is Labour’s policy on the ownership of water ?
    I know I go selectively deaf, according to my wife, but I am all ears to hear this, as it will form an important part of the 2014 election strategy, as it will still be ongoing then.

    • Te Reo Putake 8.1
      14 September 2012 at 1:44 pm

      Ha! Nice attempted diversion, my Tory friend. The real question you should be asking is why is Key still furiously paddling up the proverbial creek.

      • OneTrack 8.1.1
        15 September 2012 at 2:11 pm

        So what is the Green’s policy on the ownership of water? Is it true that Metiria would have handed all water over by now and made a law forbidding any visitor from touching any water without written permission of the owners?

        • Matthew Hooton 8.1.1.1
          15 September 2012 at 3:49 pm

          Fortran/OneTrack
          Looking at the statements from LabGreen, it is clear that their implicit policy is that they would at least entertain the privatisation of water, wind as so forth. Obviously they can’t say this explicitly because it would highlight the lunacy of LabGreen using the the potential privatisation of water to try to stop the sale of minority shareholdings in electricity generators. Meanwhile, the prime minister’s position is, in a technical sense, pure communism – that no ones water, wind etc. Perhaps it was for this reason that my RadioLIVE colleague Matt McCarten basically backed the PM’s position on Thursday. He does not believe in private ownership of water under any circumstances. Willie and JT, in contrast, support the potential privatisation of water as long as it is to iwi. We live in interesting times.

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.1.1.1
            15 September 2012 at 5:54 pm

            Willie and JT, in contrast, support the potential privatisation of water as long as it is to iwi.

            Them and a shitload of The Standard commenters.

            • lprent 8.1.1.1.1.1
              15 September 2012 at 6:06 pm

              Some. You know how it operates. People comment on what they’re interested in and most just sit back and observe. The extremes seem to attract each others comment. Typically there are less than 20-30 commentators involved out of the thousands who do comment here. It isn’t a relatively unpopulated sounding board comment stream like Yes Minister :twisted:. Hell, I even put up the gross stats on the right.

              Ummm and you seem to have been heavily involved in those particular discussions. I wonder what that makes you….

              • Psycho Milt …
                16 September 2012 at 8:05 pm

                No Minister’s a few grumpy old codgers having a rant, so you really don’t need to bother. I am however genuinely nonplussed by this:

                Ummm and you seem to have been heavily involved in those particular discussions. I wonder what that makes you….

                Is that a roundabout way of suggesting I’m one of the extremes? No offence taken if so – being in the middle of the bell curve is wildly overrated.

    • BernyD 8.2
      14 September 2012 at 2:14 pm

      I doubt they have a policy as such, your question needs to be clarified.
      And a good place to start is …

      “What is Maori ?”
      “What is a NZer?”
      “What is Civilised?”

      They should be the same question which many here would argue in favour of.
      The rest are “Divide and conquer” people, most of which are in denial of that fact beacuse they are harping words from others without thinking them through in a modern day “Civilised” sense.

    • Dv 8.3
      14 September 2012 at 2:29 pm

      It may well be.
      Not the ownership, but the USE of water.

      The Taniwha has been loosed by the incompetence of Keys NACT.

  9. Carol 9
    14 September 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Yep. Divide and conquer as reported by Tracy Watkins this evening, with Key still saying “Maori don’t own water”.

    According to Watkins many Iwi leaders failed to support the call for a pan Maori negotiation over water rights.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7680986/Maori-don-t-own-water-Key

    But the show of unity appears to be fragile with a gathering of the country’s iwi leaders today reasserting their mandate to continue discussions with the Crown over Maori water rights and interests.

    There appeared to be little support for establishing a pan-Maori body within the iwi leaders group, many of who disappeared from King Tuheitia’s hui before the vote on a national settlement was called for

  10. Barnsley Bill 10
    14 September 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Many of you claim National lack a mandate, well wait 3-4 months and you may well see them have the biggest mandate ever granted by the voting public.
    This issue will see a massive turn out if they call a snap election and the only losers will be the left.

  11. captain hook 11
    15 September 2012 at 9:06 am

    Who saw kweewee on the teevee last night saying that if some Maori did not wish to be consulted then they wouldn’t.
    More double dutch from Mr Big.

  12. captain hook 12
    15 September 2012 at 9:09 am

    And BB.
    If kweewee called a snap election in 3months then he would go down in a screaming heap.
    The country is being overridden by the shadowy constitutional advisory panel and the local body act so in no way would it be a single issue snap election and the Key Government would be exposed for the pack of hag ridden moneygrubbers that they really are.
    And the first question will be why the constitutional advisory panel was selected in private and who are they?
    And secondly what makes them superior to all others in deciding constitutional arrangements.
    Are they being paid and how much?