Proper Race Politics In Your Face

12 comments on “Proper Race Politics In Your Face ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roblogic 1

   28 June 2023 at 1:32 pm

   The Treaty is a unique relationship between the Crown and Māori. We do not want to follow the example of Chile, where the Mapuche continue to wage a guerilla campaign against the government. Or the awful attitude of Australia where the Aboriginals are crushed.

   Half of the NZDF is Māori. The anti-Treaty fools are sowing the seeds of destruction. F them
   • Descendant Of Smith 1.1

     28 June 2023 at 1:59 pm

     The generous support and organisational skills of Maori communities was on display during COVID-19 as well. I commented on this at the time. The manaakitanga shown in particular to the elderly – regardless of race or disposition was great. Non-judgemental and just caring.

     The problem for many non-Maori I suspect is that they never get to see this aspect because they have so little involvement with Maori communities and many when they do feel forced into it and resent the forcing – particularly true of many workplaces.

     At the same time Crown commitments to give Maori the same rights and services have been diminished in part by the withdrawal of government services from whence many live.

     You cannot have the same rights to services if they do not exist where you live.

     In this day and age so much work could be decentralised to rebuild those communities, to provide services and decent incomes. Lifting those communities to thrive.

     In the meantime European communities tend to self isolate in their own spaces – except for the working poor who are also looked down upon.

     We can do so much better together.
     • Incognito 1.1.1

       28 June 2023 at 2:10 pm

       You cannot have the same rights to services if they do not exist where you live.

       So true! The reasons for this are complex and inter-linked.

       Te Whatu Ora said the disestablished Counties Manukau DHB lost $130 million in health funding over the past four years because of the area's low turnout in the 2018 census.

       https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/06/25/statistics-minister-unsure-90-census-target-will-be-hit/
   • Patricia Bremner 1.2

     28 June 2023 at 5:39 pm

     agree.
2. Jess by name 2

   28 June 2023 at 4:27 pm

   Sir Apirana Ngata’s full commentary can be read at https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html.

   One of the many problems with addressing these issues today is the ill defined rhetoric that surrounds co-governance. Co-governance implies the idea of a joint authority between 2 peoples, which itself seems to have morphed from the notion that the Treaty created a ‘partnership’ between those peoples. Based on his own commentary, I very much doubt Ngata would have agreed to such a concept.

   These are direct quotes from his commentary on article the first:

   “These are but a few words but they indicate a complete cession. This was the transfer by the Maori Chiefs to the Queen of England for ever of the Government of all their lands.”

   “The sum total of the authorities of the Maori Chiefs ceded to the Queen was the Government of the Maori people.”

   Ngata, in his commentary on the heading of the Treaty, describes the state of lawlessness that existed in NZ, and then under article 3 he states:

   “This article explains what Her Majesty the Queen gives in return for what the Maori Chiefs have ceded to Her Majesty's Government.”

   Those things being, Her royal protection, and the rights and privileges of British citizens.

   There is no partnership here. There is no co-governance. There is one people, coming together under one government.

   Ngata beautifully articulates the rights bestowed on Māori by article 2, including:

   “…the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions…”

   These rights have been breached, and it is beholden on the crown to remedy those breaches. But, to quote Ngata’s own now prophetic words:

   “The second part of the Article "and imparts to them (that is, to all the Maori people of New Zealand) all the rights and privileges of British subjects", is the most important part of the Treaty of Waitangi. This is the part that impresses the Maori people most and a part overlooked by the advocates of the Maori people in their efforts to interpret the Treaty in years gone by.”

   Julian Batchelor’s reactionary speech is entirely predictable, given how far we have moved from Sir Apirana Ngata’s own understanding of the Treaty and the relationship it created.
   • newsense 2.1

     29 June 2023 at 2:06 am

     That’s a bit of slippery history. The evidence for the Hobson’s ‘we are one people’ quote (which is where the thrust of your argument comes from) ever having happened is a) dodgy and b) potentially, like so much about the treaty and its signing, subject to translation errors. Much closer is ‘we are one tribe’ if I recall correctly.

     So, also, according to your history you have an agreement with someone (the crown) who then breaches that agreement, declares it in essence never happened and even if it did it wasn’t important, and then around 130 years later says maybe it exists, but it only really applies from now…

     Essentially the treaty has always been a dog’s breakfast, particularly remembering as I’m sure you do that the Maori version of the treaty takes precedence under international law, and so recent ideas of partnership and co-governance are an attempt to backpedal and show some good faith towards an agreement that was basically ignored for 150 years by the crown.

     When Ngata passed there was still around 25 years before there was any acknowledgment at all that the treaty held any constitutional or moral weight on the crown.

     And now even that little bit of good faith meets those who’d prefer there was none and are trying to render the history one of conquest or domination. That’s why they prefer their holidays in Hawaii.
3. Peter 3

   28 June 2023 at 6:24 pm

   Julian Batchelor seems to be like many – he doesn't want co-governance – seemingly he wants Māori tromped into oblivion.

   I judge a significant number being pissed off they and their antecedents failed to wipe Māori off the face of the earth. They take that failure as a personal slight and are determined to have another go.
   • newsense 3.1

     29 June 2023 at 2:16 am

     This is exactly it. Children of a vanished empire of white superiority, they wish that they had sovereignty based on white conquest and might as the US do. They bridle at those who enjoy a bi-cultural history and multicultural present and future. And they sign up for any number of dodgy pathways of white resentment- bilingual signs or small bits and pieces of Maori reo in our public discourse- the most recent. They just want to rewrite history and remove the small moment of humanitarianism from the British Colonial Office.

     We know what John Key meant when he said he didn’t remember what he thought about the Springbok tour.
4. Phillip ure 4

   28 June 2023 at 8:35 pm

   The ignorances of racists are as wide as they are deep…

   Racist pricks like batchelor and the mayor of invercargill..nobby clark…need to be called out for what they are.

   Racists trying to cover their true selves in cloaks of democracy…
5. LawfulN 5

   29 June 2023 at 3:09 pm

   There's an old children's game called 'Buckaroo' where you pile items on the back of an irritable plastic donkey until it kicks them all off. The Treaty is a bit like that – the text is obviously unable to bear the weight it is now expected to carry. I'm glad it's not my job to interpret it – a Sysiphean task if ever there was one.
6. SPC 6

   29 June 2023 at 4:50 pm

   Article 2 – 1926

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/1926-apirana-ngata-and-maui-pomare-grievances-in-paradise/4VMZMIDJFKABUHI2OZIVEJJTRM/

   Unmentioned is the issue of iwi chieftainship – possibly because this was “supplanted” by Maori seats after the land war.
7. pat 7

   29 June 2023 at 5:42 pm

   It may be worth considering that all laws are only effective if they are widely accepted…especially in a parliamentary democracy.

   If the great bulk of a society do not accept any law it will either be ignored or actively opposed.

   Neither provides for a productive or safe society.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS