Tino Rangatiratanga

Written By: - Date published: 7:51 am, February 8th, 2015 - 309 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, Deep stuff, john key, law, Maori Issues, national, newspapers, same old national, treaty settlements - Tags: ,

It seems that we are in for a good old piece of race baiting to distract us from other issues.  The Herald kicked things off yesterday by claiming that Andrew Little supported Maori having increased powers.  The headline to this Herald Article suggested that Andrew Little thinks we should be having a look at giving Maori a power to make laws.  But from the article the context of what he actually said was clear.  He was not advocating for this power, he was recognizing the implications of a recent Waitangi Tribunal report which means this issue is a live one. What was said was this:

Mr Little made the comments yesterday, referring to a Waitangi Tribunal finding last year that Northland Maori did not cede their sovereignty when signing the Treaty.

Prime Minister John Key was criticised by elders at Waitangi for dismissing that report. Mr Little said the Waitangi Tribunal report found Maori should be able to make their own laws on matters affecting them. While that would be “highly problematic” he said it should be looked at.

Mr Little acknowledged it could concern some New Zealanders. “The fear is always that these things turn into a ‘they are getting special privilege’ or ‘they are getting a control we would never be able to have’. We have to be sensitive to that, but we’ve also got to understand for iwi now and those who have had their settlements and developed their own economic base, there are some things we might want to say they can be responsible for that is consistent with historical obligations.”

He said it was time to look at what would happen after the settlements were completed.

He said some Native American tribes had law-making powers over their territories in the United States where recognised tribes were exempt from some laws – including taxation – and could create their own laws in many areas. Mr Little said allowing separate law-making was “highly problematic”.

“But we shouldn’t be so dismissive of any claim by iwi over what they do. We do have to function as a nation-state and we don’t want to compromise that. But let’s have a look at it.”

The context is all important.  The Waitangi Tribunal, one of the most important judicial bodies in the country, has delivered a brave yet utterly defendable report regarding the Treaty of Waitangi.  From the letter accompanying the report:

It is our view that an agreement was reached at Waitangi, Waimate, and Mangungu in February 1840. That agreement can be found in what signatory rangatira (or at least the great majority of them) were prepared to assent to, based on the proposals that William Hobson and his agents made to them by reading te Tiriti and explaining the proposed agreement verbally, and on the assurances the rangatira sought and received.

We have concluded that in February 1840 the rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence. In essence, rangatira retained their authority over their hapū and territories, while Hobson was given authority to control Pākehā.

The rangatira also agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown. The Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had been wrongly acquired. In our view that promise, too, was part of the agreement made in February 1840. Further, as part of the treaty agreement, the rangatira may well have consented to the Crown protecting them from foreign threats and representing them in international affairs where necessary. If so, however, the intention of signatory rangatira was that Britain would protect their independence, not that they would relinquish their sovereignty.

The evidence is that this is the arrangement that Hobson explicitly put to rangatira – both through the Māori text and through his verbal explanations – and that they then assented to after receiving assurances in respect of their equality with the governor. Though Britain intended to obtain the sole right to make and enforce law over Māori as well as Pākehā, Hobson did not explain this. Rather, in keeping with his instructions, he emphasised that Britain’s intention was to control Pākehā in order to protect Māori. The detail of how this relationship was to work in practice, especially where the Māori and Pākehā populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time. It is clear that at no stage, however, did rangatira who signed te Tiriti in February 1840 surrender ultimate authority to the British.

While some may see our conclusions as radical, they are not. In truth, our report represents continuity rather than dramatic change. Leading scholars – both Māori and Pākehā – have been expressing similar views for a generation or more. When all of the evidence is considered, including the texts as they were explained to rangatira, the debates at Waitangi and Mangungu, and the wider historical context, we cannot see how other conclusions can be reached.

The rationale is essentially quite straight forward, under article one of the English version Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, but under the Māori version of the treaty Māori ceded “kawanatanga” which is closer to governance than sovereignty.  If the English wanted to make it clear that Māori were ceding sovereignty the Treaty would have said that Māori ceded Tino Rangatiratanga, but then Māori would not have signed.

Which version should prevail?  There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear.  Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language.  The dominant foreign power should suffer from any ambiguity.

So no matter how scary this may be for some Kiwis, the Waitangi Tribunal decision is completely rational, utterly defensible and thoroughly principle based.  The repercussion is that Ngapuhi (and other tribes) never ceded tino rangatiratanga.  If they retain this they can make laws.  Just think of them as something like Scotland.

And when you consider what Andrew Little said, all he was doing was commenting in quite a sophisticate and respectful way on the implications of the Waitangi Tribunal decision.  Although rather than advocate for Māori having the power to make laws he said that this would be “highly problematic”.

The forces of the right, there to represent and preserve existing rights of privilege, have decried this example of race based privilege.  Clearly this sort of privilege should only be bestowed on white people.

For instance John Key believes that Māori ceded sovereignty when the treaty was signed.  As an indication of what weight should be placed on this opinion he also thinks that Aotearoa was settled peacefully.  No doubt like scientists Key believes that if an august Judicial body comes up with an opinion he will be able to find an alternative august Judicial body with a counter view.  Some criticise the left for branding Key as a liar.  It is because we see a morally bankrupt PM willing to say anything as long as it supports the retention of power.

And the usual suspects have leapt into the fray and are claiming that Little is advocating for Iwi to be able to make laws, rather than reflecting on a reality which the Waitangi Tribunal has expressed an opinion on.

The Taxpayer’s Union has also expressed an opinion.  Every time I learn of one of their releases I have the urge to post a certain graphic containing Jordan William’s opinion of women …

But lets get real here.  We are going to have an intense negative debate about uppity Māori seeking privilege and the loudest voices against them will be the defenders of existing privilege.  When you get to understand what is going on the problem is not that there may be privilege, just that there may be competition.

309 comments on “Tino Rangatiratanga”

  1. Pete George 1

    He said some Native American tribes had law-making powers over their territories in the United States where recognised tribes were exempt from some laws – including taxation – and could create their own laws in many areas. Mr Little said allowing separate law-making was “highly problematic”.

    There’s a significant difference between the USA and New Zealand.

    In the US they have Federal laws but also have separate and often differing State laws.

    It’s common in the US for people to live in one state and work in another, sometimes to benefit from the differing taxation and laws.

    Here we have one set of laws designed to cover the whole country and every person, so Little is correct, allowing separate law-making could be “highly problematic” here.

    That would get complicated here with small territories or populations having different laws.

    It’s something worth discussing, but it could be a double edged sword. Some parts of New Zealand will be net beneficiaries of State funding.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

      🙄

      The last sentence in particular is beneath contempt.

    • weka 1.2

      An invasive species is a plant or animal that is not native to a specific location (an Introduced species); and has a tendency to spread, which is believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy and/or human health.

      Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host.

      Unlike predators, parasites typically do not kill their host, are generally much smaller than their host, and will often live in or on their host for an extended period. Both are special cases of consumer-resource interactions. Parasites show a high degree of specialization, and reproduce at a faster rate than their hosts. Parasitism differs from the parasitoid relationship because parasitoids generally kill their hosts.

    • tc 1.3

      Nothing worthy of discussion in your statement of the obvious petey. wanna throw in south island being annexed from the north as a chat line while your fishing.

    • tracey 1.4

      by double edged sword, do you mean problematic.

      you seem to quickly focus on how it couldnt be done, rather than instigate a discussion of an idea of how it could.

      we already have some notions of this… whanau ora… maori wardens… restorative justice through marae and there are others i cant think of.

      by focusing on how things cant be done helps ensure the status quo.

      • weka 1.4.1

        lol. Also, “I want to be not racist so I have to support this idea somehow, but in reality I don’t support this idea because I don’t believe Māori should be allowed to have special treatment (I’m a racist who knows better than the Waitanti Tribunal).”

        • Foreign waka 1.4.1.1

          To belief that one is worthy of special treatment is inherently racist. Hitler used to belief the same.

          • Chch_Chiquita 1.4.1.1.1

            Hitler believed only one race is worthy of treatment; all the rest should cease to exist. Literally.

    • Brendon Harre 1.5

      There is a converage of issues here, that boil down to whether we see the Office of the PM and its current inhabitant John Key as perfect, a benevolent dictator or whether sovereignty should be spread more widely. The sharing of sovereignty doesn’t just come from NZ’s Treaty of Waitangi process.

      As Pete George discusses the wider family of Anglo centric countries that NZ belongs to have a long tradition that sharing soveriegnty is the preferred choice. Not just a framework for indigenous peoples but for all its people.

      • weka 1.5.1

        Can you give some examples of how the Anglo countries share sovereignty?

        • Brendon Harre 1.5.1.1

          In the US, Canada and Australia sovereignty comes from a constitution. This shares power between institutions such as the President, Senate, Congress, Judiciary and State government for example. Each country has a slightly different configuration but the overall theme is that sovereignty is shared. There is no ‘crown’ that has absolute sovereignty over all other parts.

          It is not impossible to think that the Treaty will develope to being part of this tradition of sharing sovereignty, with the Treaty being part of our unique configuration or framework for how sovereignty is shared.

      • tracey 1.5.2

        is tbat what he wrote? i thought he told us the difference between the US and here in terms of state and federal law making and then reworded littles misgivings as his and thereby advocated keeping everything as it is today.

        • Brendon Harre 1.5.2.1

          Tracey you are probably right that was Pete’s intention but I am just saying there is a more positive way of viewing this issue.

          • tracey 1.5.2.1.1

            I am 100% with you Brendon. See my comment much further down. I have a vague recollection you and I have discussed this here before…

            • Brendon Harre 1.5.2.1.1.1

              We discussed it in the thread below here /we-may-as-well-kiss-democracy-goodbye/#comment-891415

              In response to the whole Dirty Politics saga,

              I also think the housing crisis, private debt levels, local goverment reform and infrastructure provision is related to this issue. As described here http://transportblog.co.nz/2015/02/06/move-to-the-waikato/#comment-155698

              A lot of this is world view challenging stuff, that wouldn’t be unfamiliar to people overseas but here in NZ, kiwis can find it hard to be positive about.

              • tracey

                am a regular reader of transport blog. all we can do is keep raising issues with some possible solutions and be positive. it always feels like the job quota argument to me… a group of society who have the lions share feel as though something that belongs to them by right is being taken away.

                • Brendon Harre

                  Kia kaha Tracey. If we stay positive and keep putting our messages out there then I believe in the end we will be successful.

                  As I said, I think there is a big picture converage of issues that need to be dealt with, which in time will overwhealm John ‘lets only change the colour of the flag ‘ Key.

                  When that time comes the left need to ready with reasoned and rational reforms to the issues.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.5.3

        😆

        See how much sovereignty you have when they strike oil on “your” land.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 1.6

      Regarding the taxation issue:

      NZ largest Business , Fonterra as a cooperative doesnt pay income tax, in fact they get a $200 mill tax credit. (Some subsidaries may differ)

      Why would a Maori Authority be any different, if its treated as a cooperative.

      • Daveinireland 1.6.1

        Err, no business pays income tax. That’s a tax for individuals. Fonterra pays company tax.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.7

      In the US they have Federal laws but also have separate and often differing State laws.

      And in NZ we have central government laws and local government laws.

      So, really, not that much different.

    • adam 1.8

      So Peter I send the crosses for burning around to your place?

      Sheesh bro – you just went off on your own waka today.

      Peace pipe – always good for these conversations, rather than what ever it’s your smoking.

      Why is it your just not happy to try living together with Maori? Is it the size of your putz? I’m confused, you seem bitter, angry, and despondent all at once. Must be the putz…

  2. millsy 2

    What I would like to know is how Maori self governance would work?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      What I’d like to see is some reason to assume it would be any worse than the way Pākehā governorship “works”.

      You can argue ’til the cows come home about the finer points of the translation of “Tino Rangatiratanga”*, and the rest of the clause is clear: “…over your lands, your homes, and all your treasures/taonga)…”

      *which doesn’t translate as “governorship” – that’s Kawanatanga.

      • weka 2.1.1

        Lots of people will be asking millsy’s question though, and looking at how it might work is one way to break through the assumptions.

        I think listening to what Māori want would be a good place to start.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

          +1

          “Lands” and “homes” are pretty clear.

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1

            and taonga.

            I’m hoping we can look at how to understand what might work, rather than getting sidetracked into whether the Tribunal was right or not.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1.1

              Copyrights and patents expire. Tinorangatiratanga over taonga clearly does not. So there are some details to work through there.

              On the one hand I want to see what the next step is from Māori. It’s clear that the National Party is rallying its Titfords, though, and I think that’s a problem we Pākehā can address, quite forcefully.

        • Pete George 2.1.1.2

          Yes “listening to what Māori want” is a good place to start. Presumably different Māori will want different things, so it will be important to consider how fragmented self governance might work.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.2.1

            Presumably different Māori will want different things, so it will be none of Pete George’s fucking business to consider how fragmented self governance might work.

          • weka 2.1.1.2.2

            Pete, how about you just acknowledge your relative ignorance on this subject and take a step back and listen. You might actuall learn something. As it is, you’re just wading in with assumptions that are so ridiculous they’re going to reinforce the impression that you support white rule.

            Fragmented, like regional, city and district councils.

            • Pete George 2.1.1.2.2.1

              Do you consider yourself a relative expert? If so I’d like to hear what Māori want from self determination and self governance, and how many think this can and should be done isolated from wider considerations and opinions.

              • lol – have you tried google factchecker – or how about go out to your marae – way you go – ask tangata whenua your questions and record their response and then write it up for your bog – you could do a tour around the rohe and then visit other areas – oh sorry I just realised that is too hard, too much like work and anyway you already know the answers so why bother…

              • weka

                I’m not a relative expert Pete. The difference between you and me is that I am aware and honest about my degree of ignorance and how to bring it into the conversation appropriately. I also know there is a lot of ground between expert and the kind of ignorance you are displaying in this thread.

                • Pete George

                  OK, so perhaps you could suggest a role for yourself here to dictate on each thread who has your required degree of awareness and honesty and ideological leanings to be allowed to comment.

                  “I am aware and honest about my degree of ignorance and how to bring it into the conversation appropriately.”

                  Yeah. All the time.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    🙄

                    Observing that Petty George is an ignorant racist means censorship!

                  • weka

                    You don’t need to suggest a special role for me Pete. Pretty much every person who has replied to you in this thread has noted that you are an ignorant bigot on this topic.

                    • Pete George

                      That’s people who are willing to comment here where any non-approved opinion is likely to be attacked, as is the person with the opinion.

                      “I am aware and honest about my degree of ignorance” – you may not be as aware as you think. Someone just commented elsewhere “Weka is having a good go at you Pete, how dare you be middle class and have an opinion!”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Racist gets attacked, bawls “it’s not fair”. Is a hypocrite as well as a racist.

                    • weka

                      I haven’t criticsed you for being middle class Pete, so I have no idea what you and whoever are on about.

                      “I am aware and honest about my degree of ignorance” – you may not be as aware as you think. Someone just commented elsewhere “Weka is having a good go at you Pete, how dare you be middle class and have an opinion!”

                      I see we’ve now moved into the trolestage of “it’s all about Pete” 🙄

                      If you continue to take my words out of contect to further your off-topic agenda, then expect me to treat you like the arch trole you are being.

                      I’m half way through listening to the Moana Jackson talk linked below. It’s not long (12 mins), why don’t you go have a listen Pete. And each time you find yourself about to say ‘yes, but…” and wanting to make a comment, stop and listen again and see if you can get what Jackson is really saying.

                    • felix

                      Pete is on record as being concerned about the “maorification” of nz.

                      Yes you read that right.

                    • Pete George

                      Sounds like you’re making things up again felix. ‘On record’ would mean there’s a record that shows the full context, not one of your wee ‘interpretations’.

                    • felix

                      A simple Google search of your name and that horrible word you coined should provide anyone interested with the necessary context.

                    • Ecosse_Maidy

                      Oh No! More Wise Words From The Pulpit of The Church Of PG Tricks.
                      Don’t fall for his dividing, derailing and current, racist in a beige sweater pronouncements!
                      Exorcise yourself from the the Holy Church of the hypocritical racist of St PG.
                      Don’t drink from his font of racist division and self agenda!
                      Put him on mental ignore, or zzzzzzz treatment, before his over due ban……If not by allowing his bile we could get infected by association with his subliminal messages of division, racism, bigotry of beige!

                      Ignore The Amateur Apartheid Peddler!

                  • freedom

                    googled “pete george maorification” and lots of entries popped up
                    here are just two expressing Pete’s concern

                    http://yournz.org/tag/maorification/ – a particularly stupid post

                    https://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/72-hours-of-equality-liberalism-and-reason/
                    “Maorification is just one of many ifications at play in poliitics, how bad is Maorification, really?” (which also links to above post)

                    But Pete will say ‘I was simply addressing a topic others put out there ‘

                    and anyway he is right, his own level of clear concern is not clear because, well, it’s Pete, when is anything ever clear?

                    • weka

                      that was a look into PG’s psyche which I now regret 🙁

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I’m not standing for that Felix: Petty George didn’t coin the word, he’s parroting his idols.

                    • felix

                      My apologies OAB, that was Ansell. Pete’s contribution to the white pride movement was the phrase “Maori correctness”

                      Just in case anyone has forgotten just how truly awful a biped he is, give that one a spin through the googleometer before he starts bleaching his torrid little site.

            • tc 2.1.1.2.2.2

              Like thats ever happening, the beige boy is a proven derailer and nat apologist.

          • marty mars 2.1.1.2.3

            “fragmented self governance”

            we aren’t talking about your mind peter

            “Presumably different Māori will want different things”

            OAB has it correct – lands, homes, taonga – it may manifest tribally or based upon waka or even collectively as one people.

          • Hanswurst 2.1.1.2.4

            New Zealanders of various stripes and origins want different things. I, for instance, seem to want rather different things from Mr. George. Despite the fragmented governance that apparently must result from that, however, New Zealand has had governments enacting and enforcing laws for well over a century.

            • JanM 2.1.1.2.4.1

              well said 🙂
              I’m sick and tired of the forms of racism./sexism/ any other -ism that assumes that the people under discussion should be of one mind, otherwise they are not worthy of being considered worthy of whatever is under discussion

          • Stephanie Rodgers 2.1.1.2.5

            Because different communities of Pākehā never want different things … the constant needling racism of your statements (boiling down to “but Māori are just so fussy, it’s too haaaaaaaaaaaard so let’s not do anything ever”) is simply 🙄

        • Murray Rawshark 2.1.1.3

          +1
          And that’s the one thing so many pakeha find so difficult. We are not taught to listen. From when we are very young, “Doesn’t say much, does he?” is a sign of disapproval. Funnily enough, “Doesn’t say much, does she?” is quite the opposite.

    • tracey 2.2

      you could google it and see what some propose.

      • Pete George 2.2.1

        Seeing what the most visible people want is not an accurate way to gauge what people want.

        • tracey 2.2.1.1

          sounds like an excuse to not educate yourself on possible models and are you saying that the majority of maori do not want a form of self governance and just won’t come out and say it?

          • Pete George 2.2.1.1.1

            No I’m not saying that. I don’t know what the majority of Maori want or don’t want. Do you? Does anyone?

            • McFlock 2.2.1.1.1.1

              Here’s how it works, Pete: Maori figure it out for themselves.

              Not you. Not me. They don’t even need our approval. It’s none of your (or my) business.

              The Anglo-Persian Agreement was a document involving Great Britain and Persia centered on drilling rights of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It was never ratified by the Majlis. This “agreement” was issued by British Foreign Secretary Earl Curzon to the Persian government in August 1919. It stated a guarantee of British access to Iranian oil fields (including five northern provinces formerly under the Russian sphere of influence). In return the British would:

              Supply munitions and equipment for a British-trained army
              Provide a 2 million sterling loan for “necessary reforms”
              Revise the Customs tariff
              Survey and build railroads.

              The document was denounced worldwide as hegemonic, especially in the United States, which also had designs on accessing Iranian oil fields. Eventually, the Anglo-Persian agreement was formally denounced by the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) on June 22, 1921.
              See also

              Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907

            • marty mars 2.2.1.1.1.2

              what’s your point then – you don’t know – why can’t you educate yourself – go to the marae – ask around ffs

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Shorter Petty George: I know nothing, therefore no-one knows anything.

              • Pete George

                mm – How many maraes do you suggest I visit to get an idea of what Maori associated with maraes think?

                I presume you’re aware that not all Maori are in the marae.

                Here’s the approach of some of the locals.

                Te Whakaariki
                Our dream is that Ngāi Tahu is a responsible contributor and decision maker in Aotearoa and our takiwā (tribal territory). The goal is to build mutually beneficial relationships with government, private and community sectors to share responsibility for delivering shared outcomes.

                http://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/leadership/

                Ngāi Tahu are fairly widely respected for how they promote themselves and their historical culture alongside being very successful in the modern world, which involves “mutually beneficial relationships with government, private and community sectors”.

                • start with 1 – can you at least try instead of finding ways to make it too hard – have you ever been to a marae? have you ever engaged kanohi ki te kanohi with Māori to find out what they think?

                • the more I read that comment of yours the more I realise what the problem is – you don’t care – it is all bullshit and pretend – you are a jumped up faker – you are a liability to any movement forward

                  • Pete George

                    Just as well there’s people like you who are so successful at pushing things forward.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Yeah, just think: forty one years ago there wasn’t even a Waitangi Tribunal: good thing Pete George wasn’t involved or there still wouldn’t be one. It would be NZTreatyFacts.co.nz and there’d be tumbleweeds there.

            • tracey 2.2.1.1.1.3

              Do you know what constitutes Maori?

              • Pete George

                No. Please define it concisely for me.

                • McFlock

                  Not you.

                  Vincent Godfrey Burns (1893 Brooklyn – 1979) was Poet Laureate of Maryland, from 1962 until 1979.

                  • Xsplat

                    So you want to reorganise the political landscape of New Zealand based on race – and you won’t even define it?

                    • McFlock

                      Nope.
                      And I defined it sufficiently for the requirements of pete, me, and probably you.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I think McFlock is responding to Petty George, whose relentless tr*lling, racism and weasel words have led many here to decide that the only response he deserves is ridicule and contempt.

                      As for the based on race side of things I think your agenda is showing. First, you have no idea what Māori want, but you’re certain it reorganises the political landscape.

                      Careful, you might get mistaken for a beige parrot, espousing mutually exclusive opinions in the same debate like that.

                    • Pete George

                      Don’t expect them to do what they demand of others, they’re averse to exposing themselves so they attack instead. It’s their standard self ridicule approach, not that they get it..

                    • McFlock

                      Okay, just to spell [edit: it] out for the two [edit: ah, whatever]:
                      1) I don’t want to reorganise the political landscape of New Zealand. I’m happy to leave it up to the judiciary and legislature to figure out how a previously abused treaty can be actually honoured.

                      2) How Maori (no idea how to do the macron thingees easily) arrange their affairs is none of my business. That’s the definition of sovereignty: they don’t need my approval to exercise it.

                      3) How Maori define themselves as a group or multitude of groups is similarly none of my concern, and does not need my approval to do so.

                      4) An obsession with defining things so you can have a discussion about it misses the point: this doesn’t involve us. We do not get to dictate terms. We do not get to define the Treaty on a blogsite. People have told you where to look for more nuanced discussion rather than expecting everything to be handed to you on a plate here, so maybe you should go there.

                      Knights in White Satin is a 1976 album composed, produced and performed by Giorgio Moroder.

                      Side A of the album consists almost solely of a disco version of Moody Blues’ 1967 hit “Nights in White Satin”, interrupted by a Moroder/Bellotte composition called “In the Middle of the Knight”. The track is typical of the disco era in that it covers an entire LP side, but atypical as it is quite slow, only 110bpm, and not what was usually considered the standard at the time, 120bpm. The main theme (Knights in White Satin) has been sampled and used again by G. Moroder for the soundtrack of Alan Parker’s movie, “Midnight Express”.

                    • Xsplat

                      Mr Bloke.

                      I just spent a little time looking at that report you asked me to look at – and it did seem to say a lot about how the Maori chiefs are still the owners and rulers of New Zealand. In principle that looks like a pretty big reorganisation of the political furniture to me.

                      Until someone tells us what is meant by all of this – with some details and proposals – then this whole discussion is just herding cats.

                    • Xsplat

                      What is it with the stupid irrelevant quotes from wikipedia?

                      Of course I have no idea what Maori want – and it doesn’t look like anyone here knows either, or doesn’t want to say. Doesn’t seem to stop them having pretty big opinions about it though.

                      And then they start abusing people as morons.

                    • McFlock

                      Because herding cats doesn’t give any reader new information.

                      See, you’ve apparently skimmed through more detailed descriptions and discussions on it than you’ll receive from people composing on the fly. So (barring you pick up a book or read material more closely than “skimming”) you’ll find nothing new. No effort, no reward. And how should we engage with people who obviously don’t wish to apply any more effort into finding things out, but still demand new knowledge handed to them on a plate?

                      Wikipedia at least gives some moderately interesting facts for other readers.

                    • Xsplat

                      Mr Mc FLock.

                      The other commenter calling himself One Ordinary Bloke asked me to read that section of this report to find out more details about what Maori were asking for. I found it a long section and I’m not a fast reader. So I tried to skim it to find something helpful.

                      It seems that just asking for some details about what Maori want is a bad thing. I get either evasive answers or I’m told it’s none of my business.

                      Or crap about some shit band no-one listens to anymore.

                    • McFlock

                      It seems that just asking for some details about what Maori want is a bad thing.

                      Assuming that a group is homogeneous and holds a single desire that should be intricately explained to you so you can determine whether you approve (when your agreement is neither needed nor useful) is not morally bad. Just a bit thick.

                      I thought the Messier 66 piece was interesting

          • Xsplat 2.2.1.1.2

            If Maori want some or any form of self-governance then what exactly is wrong with asking for some details?

            Just saying ‘google it’ seems weak.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.2.1

              Yeah, it’s not like the relevant Waitangi Tribunal report including various submissions can be found that way or anything.

              Since I’m feeling charitable, and you don’t seem beige.

              • Xsplat

                Fine document. The Summary of Conclusions states:

                At various points in this chapter we have arrived at conclusions about the treaty’s meaning and effect in February 1840. As we have said, the agreement can be found in what signatory rangatira (or at least the great majority of them) were prepared to assent to, based on the proposals that Hobson and his agents put to them, and on the assurances that the rangatira sought and received. Here, we summarise our conclusions.

                1. The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories.

                2. The rangatira agreed to share power and authority with Britain. They agreed to the Governor having authority to control British subjects in New Zealand, and thereby keep the peace and protect Māori interests.

                3. The rangatira consented to the treaty on the basis that they and the Governor were to be equals, though they were to have different roles and different spheres of influence. The detail of how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the Māori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis.

                4. The rangatira agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown, and the Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had not been properly acquired from Māori.

                5. The rangatira appear to have agreed that the Crown would protect them from foreign threats and represent them in international affairs, where that was necessary.

                The question remains – unanswered at Point 3 The detail of how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the Māori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis..

                Details, details …

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  You can find a far more detailed and nuanced discussion in the section on Crown and Claimant submissions.

                  • Xsplat

                    It’s a big section Mr Bloke. Skimming through it I see a lot of history and professors telling us what it all meant. Most of them are saying that the Maori chiefs are still the owners and rulers over their territories.

                    Which is cool. But I didn’t see much detail on how they see that working in 2015. Can you point me to to it?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I expect they see it “working” in much the same way that Pākehā governance “works” for Pākehā.

                      I know you want details, and given that you have no role to play in the discussion, I’m curious as to what you think your entitlement is. Do you think your approval or disapproval will have any standing?

                      As McFlock said above:

                      Assuming that a group is homogeneous and holds a single desire that should be intricately explained to you so you can determine whether you approve (when your agreement is neither needed nor useful) is not morally bad. Just a bit thick.

                      The Waitangi Tribunal report is so long you had to skim read it, so I see little point in directing you to the Māori Law Review’s discussion on the topic.

            • tracey 2.2.1.1.2.2

              Where would you expect to find out who has some ideas about self governance models?

        • freedom 2.2.1.2

          then try being less visible Pete, and we all might get a better gauge on what you want

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

    “…over your lands, your homes, and all your treasures/taonga)…”

    “…o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa,…”

    Presumably that annuls the Crown’s radical title.

    • weka 3.1

      are you quoting from the actual text? Just curious about how ‘your’ is used in English and ‘their’ is used in te reo.

      ‘Kainga’ means more than how Pākehā would mean ‘homes’. Kainga means settlement as well. One place where legislation could change is rural land that was originally collectively managed land and was forced into individual title. Now, rural zoning laws can prevent Māori from living on land in traditional ways because of the restrictions on the numbers of dwellings.

      • tracey 3.1.1

        education already reflects a dual system to an extent through kohanga reo. i think too many are thinking of this issue as

        they take “our” money and create their law to themselves kingdoms. That is not how I see us honouring it. I do, for example, think we could create a version of a house of lords but it is made up of Maori reps. Matters can be refferred to them, they could oversea, have responsibility for such things as whanau ora, creating Maori centric health education and justice platforms and systems. I wouldnt envisage it to be large possibly no more than 10 but with admin and budget and possibly a collective vote in parliament ? Just tossing ideas out there. we have family courts why not Maori courts with criteria for opting in or out. This would be a 20 year project minimum in my opinion.

        • tracey 3.1.1.1

          to add from this representative group following hui.. submissions… consultation over a few years they can propose to parliament how the system will work for iwi… i believe that report should be widely debated but with the maori “reps” having 40% of final parliamentary vote.

  4. Andrew Welsh 4

    Due to the non binding nature of the Tribunal this issue will be decided through the ballot box which is where these decisions should me made. I agree with Pete George that the USA is completely different as it is constitution is based on a federal constitution. This is Politics and Little needs to spell out the details (although I suspect he won’t).

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1

      No he won’t. Why not?

      Tino Rangatiratanga, whatever its finer points, has never been extinguished, so your presumption that Pākehā must “spell out the details” isn’t just conceited and arrogant, it has pretty well zero standing in court, too.

      Edit: “non-binding” – we can see what your word is worth, and who else do you think shares your poor ethics?

    • tracey 4.2

      isnt it great that we stole land and deprived maori of access to voting and other draconian laws until they were a minority and we could use democratic elections by the majority to determine stuff.

      actually the multi tier nature of the US system shows it is possible and workable rather than proving it couldnt work here.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.1

        The US system only gives tribal authorities the same powers as a borough council. And it only works because of federal government subsidies and intervention via Bureau of Indian affairs

        • tracey 4.2.1.1

          The fact that a two tier system exists and apparently work sin the US means a two-tiered system can work. If the argument is that you have to have had a two tiered system for 300 years before it is deemed a workable system then that would rule it out of the equation. Note: I am not suggesting replicating their federal/state system merely observing that two tier systems work, we ought to be bright enough to find a way to make one workable here.

    • Little isn’t proposing anything more than “having a look at” the idea. Read the post.

      I guess thought that might get in the way of panic-mongering about scary Māori seizing power.

    • Hold on. Yes, the Tribunal’s finding is non-binding, but what we have here is an argument (with impeccable evidence) that says that the Crown overreached its powers and denied Iwi their own governance. So, the idea that the Crown should hold a vote as to whether it should honour its obligations is both a recipe for inaction (are Māori required to constantly beg Pākehā for tino rangatiratanga, when in fact Māori are owed it?) and continues the breach of Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Rather, our elected government should accept the Tribunal findings (which are in line with orthodox histories) and start the process of devolution of powers. Sure, it will be messy, but its only messy because of the Crown took powers it had no rights to in the first place.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.5

      I agree with Pete George that the USA is completely different as it is constitution is based on a federal constitution.

      So, what you’re saying is that you’re as ignorant, bigoted and stupid as PG?

      We do, as a matter of fact, have a constitution but it’s written across many laws. We also have different groups that can, and do, have different sets of laws.

      There is nothing stopping us from having what was promised in Te Tiriti as we already have that structure. And even if we didn’t we could change the structure that we have for a different structure.

  5. Rosie 5

    Thank you Micky. This:

    “The rationale is essentially quite straight forward, under article one of the English version Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, but under the Māori version of the treaty Māori ceded “kawanatanga” which is closer to governance than sovereignty. If the English wanted to make it clear that Māori were ceding sovereignty the Treaty would have said that Māori ceded Tino Rangatiratanga, but then Māori would not have signed.”

    Is really the core of it.

    Followed by

    “Which version should prevail? There is a principle of International Law that the indigenous version should prevail in case of conflict and the rationale behind this is clear. Why should a dominant foreign power refuse to do something it has promised to local people in their own language. ”

    You can’t argue with that. The comparison with Scotland is helpful too.

    Furthermore, it’s high time that uppity offended, poorly informed types should consider a few points at this time of the year. Where’s the Thank You?
    One thing, as a Pakeha I like to do is stop for a moment of silent gratitude for all those that signed the Treaty. Without them, the country as we know it today, in simplistic terms, would not exist. Our ancestors may never have made that hard journey south. The Treaty and it’s meaning is alive in the descendants of those chiefs. That’s something we need to respect.

    • tracey 5.1

      gratitude? to Maori? good lord rosie… to quote pyhton

      “WHAT have Maori ever done for us?”

      the above was sarcasm

      • Rosie 5.1.1

        Lols tracey. I’ve pointed out this gratitude concept to some folk, in regard to Maori and the Treaty and the look of incomprehension and indignation that flashes across their face is really something to see.

        Then I ask about the history of the land that their house is sitting on…………..

      • gsays 5.1.2

        “WHAT have Maori ever done for us?”
        ‘well, there is the celebration of people and food, often at the same time.’

        ok, but apart from the celebration of people and food..
        ‘they do have a wonderful love of waiata’

        alright apart from the celebration of people and food and love of waiata…
        ‘they know how to stand up to the man’

        yes, ok, but except for the celebration of people and food, love of waiata, and standing up to the man..

        ‘reverence for the land, sacredness of water,’

        RIGHT.. not counting celebration of people and food, love of waiata, standing up to the man, reverence for the land, sacredness of water…

        ‘teaching us respect for the elderly and the young’

  6. “Mr Little said the Waitangi Tribunal report found Maori should be able to make their own laws on matters affecting them. While that would be “highly problematic” he said it should be looked at.”

    I hope Little rethinks the ‘highly problematic’ bit because last time Labour had a challenge with Māori around the foreshore and seabed they sided with those that thought ‘highly problematic’, and seeded a political party (which seeded Mana), lost support and seats, and was shunned by many Māori.

    • weka 6.1

      ‘highly problematic’ is like when he said Labour can’t win the by-election. Is he speaking off the cuff in these instances, or are these planned ways of communicating? Either way, I agree, he need to present this in a less underming way with his language.

      • b waghorn 6.1.1

        I think he’s right about it being’ highly problematic’ I doubt that humans in general are mentally capable of living side buy side under different rules.

        • weka 6.1.1.1

          I can tell you as a WINZ beneficiary that that is not true. Māori also appear to still be living alongside the rest of NZ, despite having their legal rights taken away with the foreshore and seabed legislation. I bet we could come up with a longer list of examples.

          What did you think of the comparison with Scotland?

          • b waghorn 6.1.1.1.1

            For something like the Scotland /England model to work you would have to draw lines on the map on tribal boundaries wouldn’t you?
            And it still wouldn’t be as clear cut as there model because it is not on race over there it’s on which side of the boarder you’re on.
            As a little aside I had a English plumber here and he got him self wound up about how the Scotts get preferential treatment and how much money it costs england to keep them in the union.

            • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1

              “For something like the Scotland /England model to work you would have to draw lines on the map on tribal boundaries wouldn’t you?”

              I don’t know, but I think I am asking how can this work?, whereas you are looking at how it can’t work. We’re not talking about absolute rule here, so why not start with the premise that the Waitangi Tribunal is right and then proceed with what do we do now? Have a look at Moana Jackson’s question below.

              • b waghorn

                I fully understand that this country cannot move forward until Maori feel they have there mana back I’m not convinced that separate laws is the way.
                I grew up in 1970s Galatea/Murupara and pakeha and Maori seemed to get on pretty good back then but the jobs went from murupara the gangs and weed growers moved in and it’s a sad place now . which leads me to think more available work and spreading of wealth might be the better way.

                • weka

                  Those things are important, but jobs and wealth can’t replace language and culture. Nor the right to self-determination (which is what the Tribunal ruling is about). Allowing Māori the same economic status as other NZers can’t make up for the 175 years of suppression of culture (including by laws that targeted Māori).

                  What is it that bothers you about Māori being able to make decisions for themselves, and if not via legislation how else could it be done?

                  • b waghorn

                    What bothers me is how you can give Maori at this late date in nz’s history separate laws with out it driving a wedge into race relations I do not want my great grand children fighting a civil war with people that for all I know could be relatives.
                    This doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize the the great wrongs done to Maori.

                    • there already is a wedge – this would actually reduce the wedge not create one

                    • weka

                      The suggestion isn’t to give Māori anything they’re not already legally entitled to. What you are suggesting is that Māori be denied their legal rights in order to… avoid having to deal with race relations in a way that treats Māori as equal?

                      Is this because you think that Māori will end up getting things that non-Māori aren’t entitled to? Can you give some examples of what you are concerned about?

                    • b waghorn

                      I’ve never said Maori shouldn’t get what there entitled to I’m worried about what would happen if we have Maori sovereignty in this country.
                      It all goes back to Mr Little’s comment about how it’s ‘highly problematic”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      What Marty said: the status quo is an injustice: what could be more divisive?

                    • weka

                      b waghorn is referring to non-Māori feeling the country is divided.

                      I’ve never said Maori shouldn’t get what there entitled to I’m worried about what would happen if we have Maori sovereignty in this country.
                      It all goes back to Mr Little’s comment about how it’s ‘highly problematic”

                      Yes. I’m curious as to how you see we could proceed. Do you accept that we should honour the treaty despite how some Pākehā feel about that and despite the challenges this might bring?

                  • b waghorn

                    The best thing to do would be to ask all Maori what they want for a start not just the chiefs the privileged and redicals .

    • Murray Rawshark 6.2

      He could have phrased it as an exciting and challenging opportunity. That’s how I see it, and if we wish any sort of legitimacy as pakeha, we have to figure out how to do it.

  7. While not as stupid as some pushing compulsory maori language lessons to those who have no inclination or see no practical reason to learn a dying/dead language, AL may just have made labour unelectable to the middle NZ voters he may or may not be courting at the next general election.

    • 🙄

      These obscurely segmented organisms have tiny eyes, antennae, multiple pairs of legs and slime glands. They have variously been compared to worms with legs, caterpillars and slugs

      • The Al1en 7.1.1

        Good one, mars. 🙄

        Are you confusing my above statement with my personal position? Looks like it. Looks like you’d be wrong… As usual. Your pre disposed bias is, for me, a clear example of you over compensating for being half British that it gets in the way of reasoned debate, but that’s your issue not mine.

        Anyway, we’ve been through the language stuff before, and getting Chinese immigrants, for example, to learn maori will be as hard a sell as it will be to force most white New Zealanders, so your wishful thinking remains just that.

        Getting middle NZ to agree to any home rule/law making or such like will be nigh on impossible and could well signal the death knell for AL before he’s even begun. There’s nothing there that doesn’t contain elements of truth and reason given the circumstances NZ finds itself in.

        I don’t care how you respond. I’m not going to be intimidated and shouted down by a tard with a grudge. My position on Maori self governance is in the archives. Go hunt for it before you get with the the roll eyes shit again. You’re so way off the mark it’s laughable, but then you are a gift treasure (taonga) that keeps on giving. 😉

        • marty mars 7.1.1.1

          🙄 lol – your creepy plan to derail this thread is not going to include me

          • The Al1en 7.1.1.1.1

            I’ll take that as an admission you jumped the gun and fell into default troll mode than actually read what was written.
            Good stuff, mars.

          • weka 7.1.1.1.2

            Spot on marty. I decided to just not go there, because we know where it will lead.

            • marty mars 7.1.1.1.2.1

              yep – it is what he wants and, as we can read below, he escalates until he gets into his jolly zone – not enough to bad mouth Māori he inevitably displays his misogyny. Luckily there are good people here who won’t tolerate it for too long.

              • The Al1en

                “not enough to bad mouth Māori he inevitably displays his misogyny. ”

                I’ve not bad mouthed maori at all, and would never do that, just like I’ve not exhibited misogyny.

                “Luckily there are good people here who won’t tolerate it for too long.”

                Yeah, you can gang bang troll me like you do pg tips and really make the difference 😆

                Have to say marty, that’s really weak trying to get people bans and close discourse because opinion doesn’t fit in one of your little boxes. I’m not overly surprised as I’ve seen you do it before, but still it’s lame, and tribal, though not in a good way.

                Like I said, I won’t be shouted down or intimidated to silence by a few whack jobs on the internet, especially ones like you who disingenuously simper for effect. Thank fuck you’re see through is all I say.

                • “trying to get people bans”

                  lol you’re doing all by yourself alan you don’t need any help from me lol and I’d never bother with that anyway – why the anger though that is what I don’t get – your comments seethe with it – anyway i’m not going to ‘chat’ to you anymore today – if you want to have a serious talk (and I may be able to help) send me an email.

                  • The Al1en

                    “if you want to have a serious talk (and I may be able to help) send me an email.”

                    Yeah, did that once because you were crying over mana being obliterated and I rubbed your nose in it. I’d rather keep it all in the open from now on, especially when corresponding with untrustworthy malicious types like yourself.
                    You can’t even force yourself to write my login name properly ffs, what could be achieved by playing to your sensibilities? No, best you ignore me more and snipe from the safety of your ivory castle (pa).

    • ghostwhowalksnz 7.2

      Its a noble idea but wont work, as Ireland found out after getting self government.

      There are probably less gaelic speakers today as a % then in the 1920s and 30s when the gaelic policy was implemented.

    • You know what I love? When people wank on about how ~useless~ learning te reo Māori is. Like learning a second language doesn’t increase your problem-solving, multitasking abilities, memory, fluency in your first language, or develop your understanding of multiple perspectives of the world.

      No no no, that’s useless, whereas all the other compulsory things I had to learn at school like computing the tangent of an angle has come in reeeeeeally handy in adulthood. 🙄

      • marty mars 7.3.1

        true – and the dead and dying language bit – lol – thought I was back in the late 1800’s there listening to the colonisers talk about Māori.

        • The Al1en 7.3.1.1

          It is dead/dying, that’s why you’re pushing for compulsory lessons isn’t it? To keep it alive.
          If Maori can’t even speak it, it’s not really a good example of flourishing and vital 😆

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1.1.1

            More than 20% in fact, and therefore your entire argument vanishes up your Titford.

            • The Al1en 7.3.1.1.1.1

              So more than 20% is an example of flourishing and vital, er okay. 😆

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Your binary false dichotomy is false. Not dead, not dying, and it’s very revealing that not only do you wish it were, you’re laughing about it.

                If only eugenics worked: we could cure racism in a single generation. /sarc.

                • The Al1en

                  I’m laughing at you jumping in with supporting evidence that doesn’t really support the case at all.

                  As for me wishing it were dead and eugenics, that’s just you being a cunt wanker and shouting racist like a cock.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Yawn.

                    Dead, no. Dying, you’re doing your best.

                    Not trying to prove anything other than that your shite logic is shite. My work here is done.

                    • The Al1en

                      Yeah, you need to troll pg tips a bit more. Must be 5 minutes since the last time, so he must be getting lonely without his shadow.
                      Seems you took that lprent compliment to heart and ran with it. 🙄

                      But seriously about logic. Are you really saying mine is faulty when you claim 2 out of 10 is an example of alive and well, given the push for compulsory teaching? Why would you bother if every thing was rosy? And that’s rhetorical by the way, unless you have a quip that’s good to go.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      So, not dead then 🙄

                    • The Al1en

                      “So, not dead then”

                      Right so you’re quibbling about the definition. Yes, it’s true, I did write

                      “to those who have no inclination or see no practical reason to learn a dying/dead language”

                      In the big scheme of things, 2 out of 10 is in life support territory, which is why there is a push for compulsory teaching, so I’m not that far off, but I had to learn Latin at school, and although spoken by more people than will ever speak maori, it’s still classed as a dead language.

                    • weka

                      Latin is classed as a dead language because it’s not used as a language by people outside of specific academic situations ie there are no people or peoples still alive who use Latin as their daily language. Wiki says a language is dead when it loses its last native speaker.

                      That is completely untrue for te reo Māori. Completely. So the numbers of people that use Māori as their native language far oustrips Latin, because there are no native Latin speakers at all.

                      “In the big scheme of things, 2 out of 10 is in life support territory,”

                      It’s true that te reo needs a push, because of the huge historical obstacles that have been put in the way. But it’s untrue to characterise it as being in life support territory. Either you are just ignorant about the numbers of people who speak and learn te reo, or you have a reason for promoting the false dichotomy and news of the language’s early demise. I’m tending to agree with OAB, that it’s interesting what you have invested in the latter.

                    • The Al1en

                      “Wiki says a language is dead when it loses its last native speaker.”

                      So without intervention, which I support, just not compulsory, how long do you reckon te reo has before it’s a goner?

                      “Either you are just ignorant about the numbers of people who speak and learn te reo”

                      Just a paltry 2 out of 10 so I’ve been informed.

                      “you have a reason for promoting the false dichotomy and news of the language’s early demise. ”

                      No I haven’t. but what would my options as you imagine them to be?

                      “I’m tending to agree with OAB, that it’s interesting what you have invested in the latter.”

                      I’ve invested nothing other than a few posts on a blog that you are free to agree or disagree with, but I’m not surprised you see great interest and look for ulterior motives that just aren’t there.

                    • weka

                      “So without intervention, which I support, just not compulsory, how long do you reckon te reo has before it’s a goner?”

                      I don’t think about it in those terms. What you call ‘intervention’ to me is just normal. We already have normal supports in place, so your question doesn’t make much sense.

                      “Just a paltry 2 out of 10 so I’ve been informed.”

                      Ae, another example of your true feelings.

                      “I’ve invested nothing other than a few posts on a blog that you are free to agree or disagree with, but I’m not surprised you see great interest and look for ulterior motives that just aren’t there.”

                      The amount of disingenuous off-topic posting in this thread is a disgrace. It tells us much about the value of the post and topic.

                    • The Al1en

                      “I don’t think about it in those terms”

                      I do

                      “What you call ‘intervention’ to me is just normal. We already have normal supports in place, so your question doesn’t make much sense.”

                      That’s a cop out, but that’s okay. If you have to close off an avenue for debate it’s okay, though you could just say you don’t want to answer instead of making shit up or dismissing as irrelevant a valid question.

                      “Ae, another example of your true feelings.”

                      How so? Can’t be the ‘so I’m informed bit’ so it must be the word paltry. Paltry refers to the small number of speakers not the speakers themselves, but you knew that already. That’s not an indication of my feelings at all, it’s only a reflection on the number. Of course go ahead and argue 2/10 isn’t small or meagre.

                      https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=paltry%20definition

                      paltry
                      ˈpɔːltri,ˈpɒl-/Submit
                      adjective
                      (of an amount) very small or meagre.

                      “The amount of disingenuous off-topic posting in this thread is a disgrace.”

                      Well fucking stop doing it then. I’m just replying to people who post shit like call me racist or imply or attribute crap to my posts that just aren’t’ there. And still nobody has commented on the AL part of my first post, the on topic bit, so yeah, right you are, ken.

                      “It tells us much about the value of the post and topic.”

                      No, I think it tells more about the mentality and stability of those who rush to condemn those with a dissenting opinion. And now you’re getting all tears, tantrums and tiaras about it. What a joke 🙄

          • weka 7.3.1.1.2

            “If Maori can’t even speak it, it’s not really a good example of flourishing and vital”

            The neoliberal argument.

            • The Al1en 7.3.1.1.2.1

              “The neoliberal argument.”

              I wouldn’t know about that, but the point still stands regardless.

              Not that this topic be twisted to a language themed one, but again, don’t take stating the reality of the situation as a literal interpretation of my position.

              Even if maori haven’t been able to maintain it, I’m happy for the public purse to support them keeping their language alive in schools, night classes, tv stations etc…

              • weka

                Māori obviously have maintained it, which is why we are able to have a conversation about furthuring te reo.

                The neoliberal argument is that it’s up to Māori to maintain it (despite the substantial obstacles put in their way), and that’s coming from you.

                If you feel you are being misunderstood in this thread, why not take the time to clarify? In the absence of clarification it makes sense for people to assume that your words represent your views.

                • The Al1en

                  “If you feel you are being misunderstood in this thread, why not take the time to clarify? In the absence of clarification it makes sense for people to assume that your words represent your views.”

                  No, I’m good with what I’ve written. There’s no need to change anything to appease you few who rush to false judgement because I don’t agree that compulsory te reo lessons in schools is a goer and that AL won’t win the middle ground by pushing this.

                  • weka

                    Fine. Just no more whining about people taking your words the wrong way.

                    • The Al1en

                      I wasn’t aware I’d done that here, but of course I will still point out when others take what I say incorrectly. That seems only fair.

                    • weka

                      yes, but the point is you don’t clarify, so it’s all on you now if people still don’t get what you mean.

                    • The Al1en

                      “yes, but the point is you don’t clarify, so it’s all on you now if people still don’t get what you mean.”

                      First post got jumped on because I said it was stupid to force people to learn the maori language and AL will have a hard sell to middle NZ if he goes down the law making road.

                      In the second post I clarified my position re the language debate, and preferred that the political thing shouldn’t be confused with my own position which is on record in the archives.

                      The rest is just a few liberal trolls, weak thinkers and a biased moderator jumping on a bandwagon because they think they smell blood, which they don’t, just the stink finger they’ve been poking each others arseholes with.

                      I’ve made it clear I support funding to keep the language alive, because obviously that’s important, so no colonial bullshit from me. My take all along is you can’t make something relevant because you wish it or force it upon the unwilling.
                      So the crapfest from the usual suspects needs to stop and brains need engaging, but looking how the standard has been playing out of late, I’m not too hopeful.

                    • felix

                      A bit ironic to lean on the idea of the “relevance” of Te reo, considering that it’s only because Te reo is still understood that we can even have this discussion about what Te tiriti does or doesn’t say.

                      Can’t imagine anything being more relevant, frankly.

                    • tracey

                      GREAT point felix

          • TE 7.3.1.1.3

            Hi Al1en my opinion,
            Is that te reo is Alive and Well in my world.
            To listen and speak te reo makes my heart sing, IT IS florishing and vital.
            There are no adequate English words to translate some Maori words
            and to speak te reo to a non speaking person is just a waste of breath.
            To make it complusory is just as ridiculous as me learning French at school.
            1 wasted year I never wanted to go to France, let alone speak it.
            That was compulsory, such a waste of my energy and someone’s money.
            To try and explain to an non speaking Maori the kaupapa of tikanga is an exercise in futility as they need the language to truly understand the concept.
            If you have no need or desire for te reo then don’t learn it,
            but to Deny others (all races) who want and desire to learn …
            well thats just called suppression isn’t it.
            Your statement,
            “If Maori can’t even speak it, it’s not really a good example of flourishing and vital” most people in my life speak te reo while Most English speaking people I converse with can’t even speak or write it properly,
            e.g. dontcha no or r ya jus gonna diss me for dat. 🙂
            Our language has evolved, we now have the transliteration of microwave and television planes motor car etc, shows me te reo is Alive and Well.
            I am reminded of Simply Red singing in Hamburg in 1993
            come to my aid/I wont feel bad, while commenting to you, it was Wunderbar.

            • The Al1en 7.3.1.1.3.1

              I’m glad you speak the language and I hope more people join you so it not only stays alive but grows.
              The same position I held about the Welsh language back in the 80s.

                • The Al1en

                  That’s a paltry amount too, but then you can’t make people learn something they don’t want to, even if you throw money at it, though early days yet in the big scheme of things.

                  Just shows just because some want it, doesn’t mean the end result they want will happen.
                  Funny that.

                  But good on the taffs that stuck with it.
                  Do you think english, scottish or n irish should have been made to learn welsh?

                  • Xsplat

                    Come at it from the other end. If 80% of people who identify as Maori don’t speak Te Reo as their first language in the home, then the argument for making it a compulsory subject for all New Zealanders to learn at school seems politically fatal.

                    Happy to see money spent on helping people who want to learn and speak it but even that may not be enough to save it. Languages die all the time.

                    • tracey

                      how many people can do maths or write a letter when they start school? Many cannot but we still teach it cos we understand it has an inherent future, if not present, value.

                      I agree it is not a populist move, but God save our children from politicians who make long lasting decisions based on the populism today

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Why just save them when you’re legally allowed to defend them? 😈

                    • weka

                      Some seem to be forgetting that te reo Māori is one of the 3 official languages of NZ.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Did you perhaps struggle to comprehend the link? “All state schools in Wales” – or perhaps you think Wales is occupied exclusively by the Welsh.

                    So, everywhere where Welsh speakers come from, the NZ equivalents are Te Ika-a-Māui, and Te Waipounamu.

            • b waghorn 7.3.1.1.3.2

              @te I get what you’re saying but I wish it had of been compulsory in school for these reasons.
              It would be awesome to live in a country with it’s own language.
              It was the first language here.
              Lack of time after someone leaves school and the fact that the older you get the harder it is to learn new languages.
              Given time it would draw this country together.
              I wouldn’t get that far away stare when at function s.
              Because it would wind the rednecks up .

              • so true – I like all of those reasons

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Especially that it would upset bigots: forceful emotional challenges are the only method that has shown any success in combating bigotry and other National Party values.

                It’s important to rub their faces in it and never stop.

                • b waghorn

                  As long as you are standing on solid ground I agree

                  • Pete George

                    But she rarely is on solid ground. Just as well race relations (and effective politics) in New Zealand isn’t based on rubbing their faces in it and never stopping.

                    • b waghorn

                      Should of watched my dog at the dog trials yesterday she’s being a bit naughty at the mo not taking her whistles at all still we got them in the pen.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      @the racist parrot: Which studies of changing bigoted opinions are you citing, shitheel? Emotional strategies work, unlike everything you’ve ever attempted.

              • Murray Rawshark

                I like your reasons too, bw. I wish I’d had the option at school.

      • The Al1en 7.3.2

        The clue was in “no inclination or see no practical reason to learn a dying/dead language”

        I’d see mandarin in schools over te reo

        • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.2.1

          Is it “display your ignorance” week at The Standard or something?

          • weka 7.3.2.1.1

            Two troles for the price of one special.

            • marty mars 7.3.2.1.1.1

              be in quick while stocks last

            • The Al1en 7.3.2.1.1.2

              Says the queen [redacted] tube twister.

              [Stephanie: Sorry, ain’t letting that flamebait through. I don’t care what arguments you want to make for that word magically not being misogynist, it’s just going to result in a flamewar.]

              • weka

                🙄 trolebait.

              • The Al1en

                Enjoy your power trip love. 😉

                For the record, the word trollopian was used, uncensored, to a male member the other day, so nothing misogynist about it, but you show your bias however you want to. It reflects more on you than it does me.

                Open mike 03/02/2015

                [Stephanie: Moderators are, sadly, not omniscient. This site is run on a volunteer basis which means some things slip through the cracks. You are being deliberately inflammatory and condescending as hell, which I can only interpret as a desperate plea for a ban. Please stop being disruptive.]

                [lprent: I have been pretty well out of it this weekend. Some kind of hay fever I think. ]

                • weka

                  More misogynistic trolebaiting.

                  • The Al1en

                    There’s nothing misogynistic about it. It’s a play on words, used to a male poster here, as linked, that passed without comment by anyone including moderators or yourself.
                    If you object to the word, state why, how it’s misogynist, and I’ll consider not using it again if I agree with your position.

                    As far as I see it, it’s a female body part that lends itself to the word troll in a pun, nothing more.

                    • The Al1en

                      Right, so nothing then, just something you feel you can use as ammunition to destroy the credibility of an opposing voice.
                      Glad that’s cleared up. 🙄

                    • weka

                      🙄 🙄

                    • The Al1en

                      Is that it, just an eye roll? No explanation on why [redacted] is an example of misogynist behaviour?

                      I can only conclude that it’s nothing but a stick to try and beat me with, and that’s incredibly shallow as is the fake outrage.

                      [Stephanie: This is blatant trolling and disruption. This conversation is declared closed and further replies will be deleted.]

        • You assume “dead/dying” is an irreversible state.

          Hebrew was once a dead/dying language, but with care and effort it’s become a living, thriving one. Ditto Welsh. And some of NZ’s “highest status” high schools still offer Latin, for god’s sake.

          And that’s ignoring the fact that under the whole Treaty discussion there’s plenty of room to argue that te reo Māori is a taonga in of itself.

          Basically, sneering about compulsory te reo as though it’s the worst form of oppression ever when (a) you’re wrong about it and (b) you’re making snotty colonialist assumptions about its value and (c) we teach plenty of irrelevant crap in schools anyway is 🙄

          • The Al1en 7.3.2.2.1

            “You assume “dead/dying” is an irreversible state.”

            Since when? Quote, link or retract.

            “Basically, sneering about compulsory te reo as though it’s the worst form of oppression ever” “you’re making snotty colonialist assumptions about its value”

            Quote, lnk or retract.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 7.3.2.2.1.1

              Your implication is clear – it’s a dead/dying language ergo there’s no point using it.

              People are quite capable of reading your comments and mine and deciding if my interpretation is valid. Don’t demand retractions, especially when you’ve been busy stirring up shit all over this post’s comments.

              • The Al1en

                “Your implication is clear – it’s a dead/dying language ergo there’s no point using it.”

                No it isn’t. That’s not what I’ve implied at all, and you can’t link to it because it never happened.
                I’ve stated there should be funding given to keeping the language alive and encouraging maori to learn it as is their wont.
                What I haven’t done is said that it’s relevant to me, which it isn’t, but at no time have I ever said, written or implied it shouldn’t be used by those who wish to use it. To imply otherwise, though par for the course with you, does you little credit.

                “People are quite capable of reading your comments and mine and deciding if my interpretation is valid”

                Sure, and that you can’t quote, link and won’t retract should be the biggest determinative.

                “Don’t demand retractions”

                That’s a simple one – Don’t make up shit about me.

                .

                • Your exact words:

                  While not as stupid as some pushing compulsory maori language lessons to those who have no inclination or see no practical reason to learn a dying/dead language,

                  If your argument is that you were categorising someone else’s racist dismissal of te reo Māori, then I apologise for implying you were racist, but this only confirms that you are deliberately trolling this thread to stir up a flame war, so I retract nothing.

                  • The Al1en

                    I have nothing to apologise for in this thread, well only for going as off topic as others have, but as no-one’s saying anything about that to others, then no big deal. The post you quote is a sound assessment of the current state of NZ politics.

                    That posts point, far from trolling, was about making AL unelectable to middle NZ by pursuing the self rule/law making position, which is quite on topic. I can’t be held responsible for the trolls jumping in feet first and taking the topic way off track.

                    That little opening dialogue and subsequent policy wouldn’t be without merit is undeniable, yet pushing what I take will be a politically divisive issue isn’t the wisest of avenues to tread when trying to rebuild a voter base from the middle ground as labour will seek to do.

                    That makes it not as stupid as some pushing compulsory maori language lessons to those who have no inclination or see no practical reason to learn a dying/dead language.

                    Your exact words, for which in my opinion you had no grounds to write

                    ““You assume “dead/dying” is an irreversible state.”
                    “Basically, sneering about compulsory te reo as though it’s the worst form of oppression ever”
                    “you’re making snotty colonialist assumptions about its value”
                    “Your implication is clear – it’s a dead/dying language ergo there’s no point using it.”

                    So back it or tag it or own it and apologise or get me a ban.
                    Your call.

                    [Stephanie: My position is clear and trying to bait a moderator into banning you so you can feel justified about your shit-stirring is just sad.]

                    [lprent: I have no such compunctions. People requesting bans should be granted them.

                    But I particularly don’t like people making insinuations about ulterior motives about this site even more right now as he did in the comment I banned him on. Tiresome, and particularly annoying when we go to such efforts to make sure it is as open as it is feasible to be without dropping into a shitpit like the sewer at Kiwiblog comments.

                    See comment below and my post for tomorrow after I calm down enough to write it. ]

                    • felix

                      Using words like “dying” is a bit of a whitewash really. Makes it sound like languages just get tired of being spoken and pass away peacefully in their sleep.

                      Perhaps the al1en is unaware that people spent over a hundred years trying to systematically murder Te reo.

                      Perhaps he is unaware that the language was savagely beaten out of several generations of children with sticks, belts, and fists.

                      Or maybe it’s just that English is superior and Te reo is no longer relevant. Who knows.

                    • The Al1en

                      Felix, I am aware of the history and past mistakes and sins of colonial classroom methodology and cultural vandalism.
                      I have no reason to want to deny your people a living language and have never advocated or argued for doing so.

                      English is generally accepted these days as the worlds language, for the moment, but that’ll be because of the old global empire and not through a cultural superiority.
                      Relevant is relative. To you it may be vitally important, to me or a chinese immigrant, not so much or even not at all. That doesn’t devalue your opinion, culture or language.

                      If ‘dying’ language is offensive, it’s not meant to be as it’s an accurate descriptor in my opinion, though judging by some on here, I’m not surprised it’s been taken that way.

                    • The Al1en

                      “[Stephanie: My position is clear and trying to bait a moderator into banning you so you can feel justified about your shit-stirring is just sad.]”

                      And I’ve clearly explained myself in response to your claims, which I strongly believe you to have gotten wrong, again.
                      I’m quite happy to do as you suggested previously and let the readership decide for themselves, even if I don’t much rate some of them.
                      I’ve got a clear conscience.

                    • 🙄 Nice passive-aggressive jibes, dude.

                    • b waghorn

                      I get the feeling he might be trying to get banned for his own good.
                      Just a guess

                    • felix

                      Al1en you flatter yourself to credit your own remarks as offensive.

                      As to relevance, it is only because Te reo is understood that the meaning of the founding document of nz can be and is being examined, with potentially enormous consequences.

                      If you think that’s not relevant to you then I suppose you won’t have much to say about the matter at hand. Fine with me.

                    • The Al1en

                      ” 🙄 Nice passive-aggressive jibes, dude.”

                      Now you’re just being a dick head.
                      There’s absolutely nothing in that which can be considered passive aggressive. Are you sure you’re not just on a mission now, come what ever?

                    • The Al1en

                      “Al1en you flatter yourself to credit your own remarks as offensive.”

                      Well if that’s the case, I don’t know what the problem is. If it’s not offensive, I guess I’m just being trolled because it’s me for going against the standard hive mind in full clique mode, and lets not kid ourselves that doesn’t exist or happen.
                      I dare say I’m not the only white person who doesn’t believe te reo should be a core subject in schools and it doesn’t make me or them racist in any way shape or form for saying so, though granted I might be the only one to post it and deal with the ‘ultra’ bitching.

                      Sure, some on here won’t like it, but at the end of the day, fuck ’em. If they’re getting shitty about someone holding a point of view that’s different from their own small world view of things then it’s not my fault. They need to get out more and stop being so self centric.

                      [lprent: FFS: What ‘hivemind’? We mostly disagree in the backend and sometimes in the frontend. I’ve had a bad day dealing with other egotistical shitheads insinuating that this site has hidden agendas. So you are banned for 4 months for that and ignoring a moderator. ]

                    • emergency mike

                      Thanks for that. This place is a lot better without The Alien. Not so long ago he promised he was leaving us, and that unlike others who say so he ‘really meant it’. Just another poor-me attention-seeking self-martyring tr0ll cluttering up threads with low-brow rubbish and having an epic cry-wank when people don’t like it.

                    • weka

                      spot on mike, thanks. I’ve been kind of despairing today about whether there’s even any point to the comments section of the standard currently. I know my own behaviour is less than exemplary, but the whole trole thing just seems out of control.

                    • felix

                      I dunno weka, I reckon you have the patience of a saint.

          • Atiawa 7.3.2.2.2

            If Te reo were made compulsory we would have a more enlightened citizen able to involve themselves in the culture, understandings and acceptance of things Maori and the Maori world.
            Any talk around partnership is meaningless without an ability to speak and understand the language.
            No wonder we have issues with bullying.

            • weka 7.3.2.2.2.1

              +1

              “what do you think Pākehā will gain if more Pākehā in this country learn Māori?”

              “you will become real New Zealanders” Miria Simpson

              That strikes me as both a challenge and a generosity.

              • Atiawa

                Thank you weka. Miria is bang on the button.
                Its not too late for it to happen but the longer it is left dangling, the less likely any sincere partnership or understanding.

                • weka

                  yes, fingers crossed with ngā tamariki, but it’s up to the older generations to make it possible.

                • Tautoko Mangō Mata

                  Also, it is vitally important that this discussion takes place soon before this government signs away more of Māori sovereignty in the TPPA agreement.

                  Show us, the people, the text of the TPPA. It is against our human rights for this government to sign a treaty that impinges on the rangatiratanga of both Maori and non-Maori before allowing the people to make submissions and have any input into the text.
                  (Has anybody else ever thought that this government uses the definition 1 meaning of submission rather than the definition 2?)

                  “noun: submission

                  1. the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.
                  “they were forced into submission”
                  synonyms: yielding, capitulation, agreement, acceptance, consent, accession, compliance

                  2. the action of presenting a proposal, application, or other document for consideration or judgement.
                  “reports should be prepared for submission at partners’ meetings”
                  synonyms: presentation, presenting, proffering, tendering, proposal, proposing, tabling, introduction, suggestion, venturing, broaching, airing, lodgement, positing
                  “you are required to write a report for submission to the Board”
                  https://www.google.co.nz/?gws_rd=ssl#q=submission+definition

                  Professor Kelsey has co-authored a memorandum that draws on the experience of countries that have been subjected to the US certification process in recent years.

                  An example of the loss of sovereignty is explained in an article written by Professor Jane Kelsey http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1408/S00194/the-tppas-dirty-little-secret-how-us-could-write-nzs-laws.htm

                  “It reveals how US officials have been directly involved in drafting other countries’ relevant laws and regulations to ensure they satisfy US demands. This includes reviewing, amending and approving proposed laws before they are presented to the other country’s legislature. The USTR even demanded that Guatemala implement new pharmaceutical laws that were not in the formal text, and which the government had strenuously resisted during the negotiations”

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Can you give us an example of the NZ position being “submissive” to the USA? When the leaked documents say “US, AUS propose, NZ, etc. oppose” what does it mean?

                    PS: don’t assume I support the TPPA.

                    • Tautoko Mangō Mata

                      NZ is being submissive to the US in agreeing to keep the text of the TPPA secret.
                      This excerpt from Jane Kelsey’s article NZH Fri 6 Feb shows the EU also have concerns about the secrecy surrounding the TTIP.

                      “Yet the European Commission has released a series of legal texts it has tabled in the parallel Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations with the US. In early January, the commission announced it would publish the whole text once negotiations are concluded, well in advance of its signature and ratification.

                      The commission was responding to trenchant criticisms from European Union Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly in an inquiry into the secrecy surrounding TTIP. She found the significant potential impact of TTIP on the lives of citizens meant that key documents had to be published. US resistance to publishing those documents was not in itself sufficient to keep them from the European public. The same reasoning applies to the TPP.”

                      Since Māori stand to lose some of their rangatiratanga if the TPPA is signed, then shouldn’t they be involved in the process? Has Tim Groser been given the authority by Māori to sign away some of their rangatiratanga>

            • tracey 7.3.2.2.2.2

              I struggle to understand the objection to Te Reo being part of the core curriculum for youngsters.

              We all did lots of stuff at school we think we never needed or used. I do know from my own experience with other languages that learning a second language makes you mentally dextrous, until you are fluent you move between two worlds and even after that. It is a uniqueness to NZ why not embrace that and what a great and simple way to embrace the Treaty principles.?

              • weka

                Maybe there is a failure to understand that in learning te reo, one doesn’t just learn the words and grammar. One learns the concepts and world views. To me this is as important as keeping the language alive – the point that Atiawa is making that in learning the reo it follows that Pākehā would come to understand Māori in a real way that I don’t think you can until you start with the language and how it is taught (which means that if it were compulsory in schools, it would need to be taugh in the way that Māori teach, not Pākehā).

                I’m sure that’s the basis of some people’s objections too (how dangerous would it be if Pākehā were actually biculturally intelligent?), but I don’t think they are the majority. Most people are objecting from lack of awareness rather than bigotry (not to underestimate the bigots).

                • Atiawa

                  Yes. The awareness and bigotry arguments are often the differences between left and right politics.
                  I would find life less conflicting if I forced myself to believe that neo liberalism was god’s gift to the people in comparison to socialism.
                  Learning, speaking & understanding French is fine if I were to live in France. Conversely learning, speaking and understanding Te reo makes me a more rounded and valuable New Zealander.

                • Foreign waka

                  Weka, you are so offensive that it is not funny anymore. Any Pakeha recently immigrated will speak at least 2 languages if not more. In fact those who have settled in NZ in the last 20-30 years had to pay mega bucks to be here and have had to go through tests ad nousum to proof that they can speak the lingo – English that is. I have been told that not even NZ scholars need to speak and write at such levels. And to top it all off, there is also an age limit and skill requirement that has to be met or else you are on the next plane. There seem to be very little understanding to what it actually takes to settle here. It is extremely difficult, especially for non commonwealth citizen. So as to the intelligence and skill level, I am convinced and I can reassure you NZ only allows the upper 1/3 of any applicants in terms of the scholary attributes. As to speaking Maori, this is not viewed as a language that helps in the first instance to trade with other countries. It is also not helpful when immigrating as the professional requirements need to translate into almost immediate contribution to the country. This is to have this country prosper to pay all the bills that need to be paid to get the wishes and aspirations of all people here realized and therefore have precedence. This ought to be true for all people and races. It is my observation, that immigrants work extremely hard and do more then many NZ born people simply because they KNOW that nothing will be given to them and have the urge to survive. Unless you propose that these people have no rights and are viewed as an underclass that is suppose to contribute without return, then please explain the proposition.
                  All I see and hear is racism that seems to be right for one folk and wrong for the other. When will this stop? When will the people move as one as proposed in the Tiriti o Waitangi as we all being told on our journey to settle in NZ? Kia ora – whakawhetai koe, ki te whakaute

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    The people will move as one when we become like the Borg. easy for the right wing parrots to say: they already play follow the leader.

                    Some of us like to think for ourselves though, and would rather not follow dimwits and bigots.

                    • Foreign waka

                      Is this an insult? What do you want to say? Do you think that the people who are working long hours to support themselves are Borgs? Really?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      No, I’m saying your “argument” isn’t an argument, that Te Tiriti doesn’t say what you say it does, and only fools and scoundrels talk about “one people”, cf: Samuel Johnson.

                  • Jenny Kirk

                    All I see and hear is racism that seems to be right for one folk and wrong for the other. When will this stop? When will the people move as one as proposed in the Tiriti o Waitangi as we all being told on our journey to settle in NZ?

                    In answer to Foreign Waka who asked the above question, it’s my personal opinion the racism within NZ between Pakeha and Maori will only stop when all Pakeha have an understanding of the real history of NZ’s colonial settlement, the extraordinarily awful mistreatment of the Maori people and the alienation of their lands. Learning te reo will help with this understanding.

                    To Foreign Waka – you presumably will not know that generations of NZ children were not taught the real facts behind the NZ Land Wars while at school, and that there is very little general knowledge of this history among the majority of adult NZers. Nor that Maori people were banned from speaking their own language for very many years.

                    And you were probably told a very glossy view of NZ’s race relations by NZ immigration people when you were migrating from your home country. Perhaps you even believe the myth our current Prime Minister is promulgating – that NZ was peacefully settled ?

                    There is still much for all of us (NZ-born and migrating NZers) to learn about our history.

                    By the way, I do not know what you found offensive in anything Weka said above, but I would like to suggest that maybe there was a misinterpretation on your part with whatever it was.

                    • Foreign waka

                      To answer your last question first, as this invoked my response: “(how dangerous would it be if Pākehā were actually biculturally intelligent?)”
                      I personally find this an affront and I am sure many people of European decent would too. Most speak 3-5 languages and have a very firm grip on history over the last thousands of years.
                      Secondly, just putting all the wrongs of the forbears onto the people having recently immigrated will not foster understanding, actually, it will just do the opposite.
                      The only person I have ever encountered being negative towards anything Maori was some years ago when I was adamant that the language should be thought in schools and his refute was accompanied by an “you are a bleeding heart”.
                      Most Europeans are very well aware of the treatment of Maori but are also equally aware of the cultural division i.e. attitudes towards women, children. Knowing the differences is a good thing, growing similarities is the one thing so many seem to find objectionable. There are no easy solutions, it will always be a work in progress as it should be with so many different people. The one thing that can and may I say should unify, is one law and one country. I suggest that the politicians should tell the public in the next couple of months whether this will be kept or whether immigrants need to look for a new home. No one wants to see another South Africa. Would this be a fair enough request?

                  • I don’t get what your problem is foreign – people get into this country all the time without being able to speak te reo Māori, most live here without learning the language – no one is forcing new immigrants to learn it. Although if it was me I’d have a very extensive learning opportunity for new people to learn about the history of this country from a Māori perspective – but i’d also have that for anyone and everyone who wants to live here, grow here and die here.

                    I love that people want to move and live here – but it is defining the ‘here’ that is the challenge imo.

                    • Jenny Kirk

                      To Foreign Waka – yes, as I thought – some misinterpretation going on here with Weka. I thought Weka was referring to us NZ-born Pakeha who don’t know more than one language (English).

                      As to your statement : “Secondly, just putting all the wrongs of the forbears onto the people having recently immigrated will not foster understanding, actually, it will just do the opposite.”

                      That, too, has not been the intent of NZ-born Pakeha on this post, nor is it the intent of Andrew Little Labour leader. For a very long time, NZers (born here) have been saying ” should we be responsible for the misdoings of our forbears”. Maybe, maybe not.

                      But what does need to happen is that we (the current generation) take some responsibility for making sure those misdoings of our forbears are righted – and that is what the Treaty settlements are about.

                      And after that is all settled, there is still the issue : what comes next? How do we – all NZers (migrant, Pakeha NZ born, Maori) make the Treaty of Waitangi work in a liveable way ? That is the guts of what Andrew Little was saying – and it is a debate that has to happen when the Treaty settlements are finalised.

                      And as far as I can make out, there is nothing derogatory to new NZ migrants in any of that.

                    • Foreign waka

                      Marty, I find it offensive when it is assumed (yep, one can set the comma’s) that Pakeha are bi culturally illiterate.
                      I have talked about my point of view on several responses so I hope you don’t mind if I wont repeat all of it.
                      Yes, it would be beneficial to have a Maori perspective on the history of this county. Just want to mention that most immigrants actually learn about the historical past but of cause it is current curriculum stuff.
                      The “here” is indeed a challenge as you so rightly picked up on. Any hostility drives the emotions and with it the connections to this country. It is not easy putting down roots if you are told that you are “culturally illiterate”, “your kind” has to pay for all the wrongs of the past etc…. especially if employment becomes an issue as well. Contrary to common belief, except signature countries like Samoa, there is no entitlement for any benefit for at least 2 years and after that the “sponsor” has to cough up. So to say that this population group is the one that needs to do the most is not really impressing me.

                    • weka

                      I’m not sure what this conversation is about (and my comment above has nothing to do with how many languages people speak and in no way suggested that adult immigrants should have to learn te reo), but I think my comment hasn’t been understood yet. I would appreciate anyone who has a problem with it clarifying what the problem is by referring specifically to what I said. Foreign Waka, your first reply to me makes almost no sense because I can’t see how it relates to my comment.

                      As for Pākehā being biculturally illiterate, I would have thought that in the context of this conversation it was obvious I am talking about Māori/Tau Iwi biculturalism (immigrant perspectives on culture beyond that can fall under multiculturalism). I’ve lived in NZ for nearly 50 years and it’s still floors me each time I understand something new about Te Ao Māori and realise that most of us Pākehā really have such a poor understanding about the people who share this land with us.

                  • Murray Rawshark

                    I think you’re looking for offense where it doesn’t exist, fw. I’m pakeha, I speak two languages fluently and understand bits of others, but I’d be a better pakeha if one of those were Maori. The fact that most pakeha are monolingual is just that – a fact. More recent immigrants may well speak other languages, and that contributes to the richness of our society in its own way, but imagine if their children spoke Maori as well.

                    “I have been told that not even NZ scholars need to speak and write at such levels.”

                    I taught at Auckland University about 20 years back and the standard of English of many migrants was atrocious. If they had certificates of English proficiency, they certainly didn’t pass the tests themselves. But I suppose their parents did have money.

                    • Jenny Kirk

                      Weka – I totally agree with you, when you say :

                      ” I’ve lived in NZ for nearly 50 years and it’s still floors me each time I understand something new about Te Ao Māori and realise that most of us Pākehā really have such a poor understanding about the people who share this land with us.”

                      And I was born here getting on for 70 years ago and come from families who settled in NZ in the late 1800s.

                      I asked my sons recently (aged 40, 44 respectively) – what did they learn about Maori and NZ’s settlement history, and the Land Wars at school – and the eldest learned something in the sixth form, and that was it .

                      We are now teaching ourselves – by reading, visiting various historic places, picking up info from tangata whenua – and so on. I firmly believe that if we’d all had a better grounding in NZ’s real history during our schooling, then this country would be more at peace with it/ourselves/tangata whenua than we are today.

                      PS I don’t know what Foreign Waka is on about, or getting upset about, either !

                    • weka

                      I was fortunate to do a bicultural workshop run by Irihapeti Ramsden in the mid 80s. It was very inclusive and encouraging to get people to look at their own place in NZ and where they had come from, as well as looking at the hard stuff, like the lists of legislations that had been passed that targeted Māori in order to progress assimilation and the colonial agenda. It was a very safe way to present some pretty challenging things. Most of the Pākehā in the room had no idea. I wish we had more opportunities to learn in this kind of setting. Not sure if anyone does those workshops now, they’re probably considered old fashioned.

              • freedom

                “I struggle to understand the objection to Te Reo being part of the core curriculum for youngsters.” +1, I look at it like this:

                If a person shares their food with another, two people are not hungry.

  8. A couple of good speeches from Waitangi

    Annette Sykes http://mananews.co.nz/wp/?p=2404

    Moana Jackson http://mananews.co.nz/wp/?p=2418

    • weka 8.1

      A summary of Jackson’s korero,

      One of the reasons the Crown passed the Foreshore and Seabed legislation was because they knew that while Māori had the seabed and foreshore it would not be exploited and polluted. Māori at the time were called alarmist for raising the issues of what would happen if the govt took ownership. Within one month of the legislation being passed the govt leased the first seabed drilling licence.

      In 2004 40,000 people were on the hikoi to parliament to ask the govt not to take away the foreshore and seabed via legislation. They were ignored. Two weeks after that 40 farmers were on the steps of parliament, asking the govt to not use legislation to tax them for GHG emissions. The govt agreed.

      What that showed was that Māori had been rendered constitutionally powerless: “we cannot make our own decisions about what is best for our people, what is best for the country”

      Jackson is adamant that if the seabed and foreshore had remained with iwi and hapū there would be no need for protest against Statoil, because Statoil wouldn’t be here.

      In the past few years Jackon has travelled with a working group around the country and talked to thousands of Māori and asked this question,

      “If we did not give away our sovereignty, if we still have the right to make our own decisions, and we could do it tomorrow, based on tikanga, He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, what might that look like?”

      Even if many Māori don’t understand all the ins and outs constitutionally, they understand powelessness, because they’ve experienced it for 175 years.

      Jackson is saying that they will collate all the thing people have said to them into a discussion document, and use that as a reference source for when we get to the point of re-establishing constituional process based on tikanga, He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

      He then makes the point that before 1840, each iwi was able to make decisions about itself without having to ask permission from another body i.e. each iwi had its own system of governance (I think many Pākehā fail to understand this).

      He sets his personal timeframe as this being achieved by 2040 (the 200 year anniversary).

      Then a bit about Bolivia’s new constitution, whereby they get to make decisions in their own land, achieved after 500 years of an imported constitution. It includes as its opening article, the Prime Law of Pachamama, which means that in Bolivia you cannot make a decision that infringes the rights of nature (hence if in NZ, not need to protest Statoil).

      What might this country look like if based on tikanga, He Whakaputana and Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

      (He Whakaputanga http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/he-whakaputanga-declaration-of-independence )

  9. One of the contradictions of many Pākehā responses to ideas about tino rangatiratanga was summed up nicely by Morgan Godfery:

    This is the incongruous intellectual tradition of which Gareth Morgan is a part. He supports “rangatiratanga”, yet he opposes “unique political rights for Māori”, which is rather contradictory because rangatiratanga is a unique political right for Māori: it is the right to our “unique” indigenous systems*. Surely, for the sake of credibility if not consistency, you cannot support something in one breath and then condemn it in the next.

    The whole thing is worth a read:
    http://mauistreet.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/gareth-morgan-and-pakeha-pathology.html

  10. Steve Alfreds 10

    And maybe that’s why Mr Morgan should just stick to the business world. How could he oppose “unique political rights for Māori” while advocating a special race based upper house?

  11. Ad 11

    Talk of multiple “sovereignty” generally makes my skin crawl. Our country too small, our state too weak.

    But the IMSB has helped Auckland Council function and the wheels haven’t come off.

    • tracey 11.1

      It depends on how you manifest it. Perhaps having greater sovereignty over certain aspects would be an acceptable compromise. After all Maori have a better record of compromising with others than “others” have of compromising with them, historically.

  12. tracey 12

    Perhaps the resistance is more simple if not subliminal

    What if WE give THEM more power and they do to us what we did to them?

    • weka 12.1

      that’s pretty much what it always comes down to. Fear and mistrust.

    • Murray Rawshark 12.2

      I have no reason to not trust Maori. I’d actually be happy if they had 100% of the power, but I realise that’s not a common view.

      • Pete George 12.2.1

        I agree, I doubt that it’s a common view. Democracies seem to be the popular thing these days.

        If Maori had 100% of the power (there would probably be quite a few more New Zealanders claiming their Maori status) how would that work and what would it change?

        How many Maori would want Maori to have 100% of the power apart from Winston Peters?

        • Naturesong 12.2.1.1

          “How many Maori would want Maori to have 100% of the power apart from Winston Peters?”

          Really? Could you provide evidence?

          Given how well Peters works within the current system, I would have thought that such a scenario would give him a serious case of night terrors.

          • weka 12.2.1.1.1

            It’s a completely disingenuous question from PG the arch trole, who believes that Maorification is a problem in NZ and quotes white supremacist Ansell.

            • Pete George 12.2.1.1.1.1

              “completely disingenuous”

              Irony and hypocrisy rolled into one.

              • weka

                You don’t deny the racism though, do you.

                • Pete George

                  You haven’t proven racism, you’ve just made some lame connections using disingenuous phrases.

                  I’m sure it would be possible to claim a bit of racist in everyone, including you. It’s a meaningless ad hominem unless backed with something substantial, which you have failed to do, hypocritically.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Felix gave us all a heads-up yesterday – pointing to your racist posts at Yawns. I already knew you were trash, and I hadn’t realised quite how low you are until then.

                    • weka

                      +1.

                      None of us here has to prove anything Pete, it’s all there in your own words /tino-rangatiratanga/#comment-965276

                    • Pete George

                      Then felix admitted he got it wrong.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The only thing he got wrong was claiming you’d coined some racist phrases you’d merely agreed with and promoted.

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      Yet another lie from reasonable racism’s Pete Beige:

                      “Then felix admitted he got it wrong.”

                      Nope. felix clarified that you were just a repeater of Ansell’s racist phrase. Like it or not, Pete, you are a racist. You wrote a racist post on your own site and you propagate racist drivel here. You revel in racism and love playing the victim when you are called on it.

                      Fuck Off.

                    • weka

                      “Then felix admitted he got it wrong.”

                      Like I said, completely disingenuous, even when the evidence is right in front of us all.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Is that a good thing?

                      Do we get too much of ?[sic] Or is it about right now?

                    • felix

                      Yep I got it wrong. I said Pete coined a particular racist term when he actually coined a slightly different racist term.

                    • You are a liar peter – you used Maorification in a reply to me on this site away back – I remember it even if you choose to forget.

                    • weka

                      Pete wants links.

                      Sept 2011, Pete coins the term “Maori correctness”

                      http://www.donotlink.com/dln1 (Yawnz)

                      He linkwhores that post at Kiwiblog, where no-one understands what he means by “Maori correctness”.

                      http://www.donotlink.com/dlms

                      He defends something muddled, by talking about a conversation on ts about how John Key didn’t use a te reo greeting in his speech at the Rugby World Cup. Pete defends Key. This appears to be the thing that prompted the coining of the word.

                      He misrepresents the conversation at ts, by saying that there have been “complaints about John Key not speaking in Maori”, when in fact the debate is about Key not saying kiaora.

                      He linkwhores at ts, where he pretty soon gets called a racist.

                      Open mike 16/09/2011

                      He also does some whiny, why can’t people let me say what I want comments (sound familar?)

              • I see you’ve still not backed up your assertion about Winston Peters.

        • Murray Rawshark 12.2.1.2

          Intestinal parasites are parasites that can infect the gastro-intestinal tract of humans and other animals. They can live throughout the body, but most prefer the intestinal wall. Means of exposure include: ingestion of undercooked meat, drinking infected water, and skin absorption. The two main types of intestinal parasites are those helminths and protozoa that reside in the intestines (not all helminths and protozoa are intestinal parasites). An intestinal parasite can damage or sicken its host via an infection which is called helminthiasis in the case of helminths.

  13. Jay 13

    Millions of dollars have been poured into saving the nz Maori language over the last few decades. Despite that it’s still declining

    The Samoan and Tongan languages are thriving in nz. Why? Because those two ethnicities in particular usually insist that their nz born kids speak it in the home.

    Most nz born Tongans and Samoans I have met speak their languages fluently. Most nz born Maori, cook islanders and Niueans I have met, don’t

    Why? Attitude.

    Languages die because they are no longer spoken in the home. There were never any dawn raids to catch out people speaking Maori to their kids. Teachers didn’t go home with kids and strap them there.

    Considering all the money and time and resources poured into it keeping it alive. the reason nz Maori is dying must be apathy.

    Making any language compulsory in schools can never and will never save it from extinction. It’s a desperate idea thrown up in frustration, it’s only impact would be to create even more division.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      Oh you’re doing quite well at fostering division as it is.

      “Attitude” – indeed. Whose attitude, though.

    • Jenny Kirk 13.2

      To Jay @ 13 – perhaps there is other more valid reasons why NZ born Maori, Cook Islanders and Niueans have difficulty speaking their own language rather than just the “attitude” you promulgate so disdainfully.

      In the case of the latter two ethnics – they are very much in the minority in NZ, they came here to get work and improve their families lifestyles and their first priority would have been learning to speak English so they could get on in the workplace. Being such small minorities in an English-speaking country, being poor, and with their children going to school where English is the spoken/written language does NOT mean they have a fatalistic attitude towards their home language. From personal experience, I know elders of these races have been extremely concerned at the potential loss of their languages, and for a number of years now efforts have been put into rectifying this.

      As to te reo, perhaps you need to come north for a while and live here, and you’ll find te reo is very much alive and kicking. And perhaps you also need to consider the history of te reo under colonisation when it was banned from being spoken in schools. And the total lack of settlement history being taught in NZ state schools for decades. And then you might have a greater understanding of the issue without being so darned superior !

  14. Sable 14

    This is precisely why Labour keeps getting into trouble and losing public support. I’m sure I’ll be pilloried by the far Left for saying this but this is not a mainstream issue for the majority of the voting public. Indeed, most I have spoken to are sick and tired of Treaty related issues and feel, not unfairly, that its become a cash cow for a small group of politically savvy people.

    If Little wants to gain support he needs to focus his attention on issues that are central to Left leaning voters, not political fringe dwellers. Why are we considering signing the TPPA? Why has Little not harassed and harangued Keys over this? The French have balked at aspects of the European version of this so called agreement, especially as it relates to legal sovereignty. They wont be signing this year, if at all

    What about our sliding standards of education and healthcare? Not much to say on that important issue either. Why are the working and middle classes carrying the bulk of the tax burden? Why are large corporate’s allowed to get away with no paying their fair share of tax? Why are fines imposed on large business for breaking the rules so insignificant? What about the reality of unemployment in this country and poorly managed immigration.

    There is a lot Little could say but like his predecessor he’s not focusing on what core Labour supporters want and until he does, he can expect to remain in opposition.

    • Foreign waka 14.1

      AAAA++++

    • One Anonymous Bloke 14.2

      Yes, God™ forbid Little should say anything David Farrar and John Key can’t tell lies about!

      No. wait…

    • Jenny Kirk 14.3

      Oh for goodness sake, Sable – Andrew Little was quoted while being at Waitangi – for a couple of days – during Waitangi ceremonies and celebrations. That was the focus of his visit, and his comments. And rightly so. Much more than the war-mongering PM who used the Waitangi platform for his own purposes.

      Andrew Little has plenty of time to focus on the “core” topics that Labour supporters want him to – and in fact he has started doing that already with his State of the Nation speech on jobs/employment etc.

      • Foreign waka 14.3.1

        Jenny, just another misunderstanding when Andrew Little talks about 2 laws…?
        I see this in a wider context and coupled with comments here in this forum as well as in the wider community.

        • Atiawa 14.3.1.1

          White South Africans enjoyed something similar to their advantage for several generations. Why wouldn’t a principled white majority government not look to cutting some slack toward the treaty partner?
          Racism isn’t a native species.

          • Foreign waka 14.3.1.1.1

            wrong and Tracey too, wrong on all counts and on sooo many levels. But what it shows is a preconceived idea as to what I am actually saying. So it wont make a difference to write anything as the case is closed before it is argued.

            • Atiawa 14.3.1.1.1.1

              Haere ra.

              • Foreign waka

                iwi o nga tae katoa e taea e kaikiri. Ko te ora kaikiri i Aotearoa . Ähei taea e kite i reira , kahore he tangata talkes e pā ana ki te reira. E mea pinepine against te iwi ma . Kia tae mai tenei ano he ohorere , engari kite ahau i te reira i te mau mahana atoa .

    • tracey 14.4

      because he apparently thinks the TPP is a great idea, there can be no other conclusion to draw can there?

  15. Jay 15

    OaB how is what I’ve said divisive? It’s just the truth.

    In the thirties Maori leaders and politicians encouraged Maori not to pass on the language to their kids. I know the next logical step is to blame Europeans for that view in the first place, which is surely highly insulting to Maori to suggest that by the twentieth century they were nothing more than ignorant savages, easily duped by the white man. The truth is, few saw the value of it back in those days

    How many people do you know with parents that speak another language who didn’t pass it on to their kids? I know loads.

    Most Maori don’t speak Maori for the same reason most people with gaelic ancestry don’t speak gaelic. Somewhere along the line someone didn’t pass it on to their kids, and eventually it became irrelevant.

    It’s about personal responsibility. The government have made available massive resources to all nzers. If you want your kids to speak Maori, learn it yourself, and insist they only speak Maori in the home.

    Making it compulsory in school will have some positive effects, as learning any new language does. Will it revitalise the language though? No. Tongans and Samoan have got it right, and until and unless Maori emulate that, the language will continue to decline until it reaches the point of no return.

    Making it compulsory in schools is more laziness and apathy – we’re now making it the school and our children’s problem to fix this mess.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      “Some positive effects”.

      Good. That’s all you needed to say. Let’s do it.

      So far as I’m concerned “personal responsibility” is a hypocritical sick joke: code for “fuck you I’m alright Jack”.

      • Foreign waka 15.1.1

        Peg your pardon? Personal responsibility starts with getting out of bed, brushing your teeth, washing yourself and getting productive, if not for yourself then for your whanu.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.1

          Really, is that what it means? Funny, because I most often see it in wingnut rhetoric, being used to blame people for their own misfortune, with a side order of whining about having to pay tax.

      • adam 15.1.2

        I love how racists like Jay, and yes I’m calling you a racist. Have a new pc code system to spew their racist garbage. Well done One Anonymous Bloke, for pointing out just one of many buzz words these bigots have, and now use. The flowery language, and the pc nature of your rant jay, don’t hide the fact you need to take a good long hard look at your racism.

    • Murray Rawshark 15.2

      English is compulsory in schools. Why bother, if people speak it at home?

      • felix 15.2.1

        I don’t mind if parents want to send their kids to a special English speaking school. Or there’s always night classes. But just don’t ram it down my throat, it’s not even that important in a world of texting and autocorrect.

  16. Jay 16

    How am I racist? You are only calling me that because you can’t put up a reasoned argument, so you resort to calling me names.

    Race is a social construct anyway. I’m just a person

    The bottom line is, forcing kids to learn Maori is not what’s required to stop the Maori language from dying.

    To save it it needs to be spoken in the home. The lack of that is what’s killing it in the first place.

    Anyway, I’d better go remind my Maori wife (Ngati whakaue/Te Aitanga a Mahaki) to let my daughter (Nga Puhi) know I’m racist.

  17. Tanz 17

    Absolute rot. The left and Maori keep re-interpreting the treaty to suit their own ends, and it’s turning into a joke.

    No one can go to Mt Eden for the view after 8.30 and we are seeing restrictions elsewhere as well, that no one actually voted for or were consulted on. Totally undemocratic.

    Maori did indeed give up sov. and also, they have been paid many millions (much of it wasted and not given to the needy etc), but has gone to the coffers of the elite. It’s just a travesty.

    Read Twisting the Treaty; this is very interesting. What we now have is the path of separatism and racial division, caused by the leftie govt and elite Maori, always clamouring for more. So, are homeowners expected to gift their homes back to Maori, is that where it’s going to all end? The way things are going, civil war may be the end result, because Maori are being exalted over everyone else. In reality, they weren’t the first in NZ at all, Moriori were. But that’s swept under the carpet.

    At least Winston Peters has common sense on this issue, unlike slippery old Key. Divide and rule…is that the reasoning..?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 17.1

      It’s heartening in a way, how lame and reactionary the “arguments” trotted out by these people are: ignorance and prejudice in a toxic brew.

      Luckily, the packaging says “Poison” in clear bold letters.

      • Gosman 17.1.1

        Agreed it is a rather simplistic and in many ways inaccurate representation of the situation. However identity politics will be up against similar views and hence why it is unlikely to b a vote winner anytime soon. Trying to radically reshape constitutional arrangements won’t be a vote magnet for the left.

    • weka 17.2

      “No one can go to Mt Eden for the view after 8.30 and we are seeing restrictions elsewhere as well, that no one actually voted for or were consulted on”

      Citation for the first bit (Mt Eden), and three linked examples of the second please. Link or it didn’t happen and you are intentionally spreading inflammatory racist lies.

  18. Tanz 18

    OAB, so give your home up to your local Iwi then. The way the treaty keeps getting twisted and reinterpreted wrongly (already it’s in all resource consents, making life harder), that’s where it’s going to end. You will have to pay your Iwi the value of your home, if you have one, or simply just give it to them. Will you be so for it then??

    Also, race-based scholarships are now so the norm, do you agree with this also? You get a free ride to Uni simply because of your race???

    • Murray Rawshark 18.1

      Your words could have come from John King-Ansell. It’s only fairly recently that government has worried about what the treaty means. Before that it was ignored.
      “Also, race-based scholarships are now so the norm, do you agree with this also? You get a free ride to Uni simply because of your race???”

      I sense another dumb fool who couldn’t get into a university course on his own merits, and blames Maori for his failings. I’ve seen a few like you, mate, and we are truly better off without you as a doctor.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.2

      How about you demonstrate some connection to reality first? Let’s see these scholarships that are a free ride, for a start.

    • weka 18.3

      Citation needed for the scholarship bit. The rest is blatant scaremongering crap.

    • lprent 18.4

      Also, race-based scholarships are now so the norm, do you agree with this also? You get a free ride to Uni simply because of your race???

      You mean the scholarships paid to Maori students by Iwi corps and trusts? That is the majority of them.

      So following the same principles we should ban all scholarships given by
      1. religious organisations to religious kids.
      2. groups like rotary and lions (amd others) who give overwhelmingly to kids of rotatians and lions et
      3. etc

      In fact lets go the whole hog and prevent parents from paying for their childrens higher education directly or indirectly. That certainly gives many kids a free ride both to university and to their subsequent loan free existence.

      If you disagree, then perhaps you could do the courtesy of justifying why that is different from Maori helping Maori from their own funds.

      Sometimes you really do seem to be such a fool. It seems to mainly come out on some kind of envy myths you got told as a kid and which you never seem to have thought about since.

      • Pete George 18.4.1

        2. groups like rotary and lions (amd others) who give overwhelmingly to kids of rotatians and lions et</blockquote.
        In my experience that sounds extremely unfair on Lions and Rotarians. I haven't seen them favouring their kids at all. They help a much wider community and not their own families.

        Maybe it works differently in Auckland but I'd be surprised if it does.

        • lprent 18.4.1.1

          I haven’t been around either group for quite a few decades. But I definitely did see that when I went on a few training junkets with them back in the 70s and 80s. If you asked the other people sent off, that was the common factor for almost all of the educational stuff. I gathered that it continued…

          However I was merely using them as an example of one of the many many examples of group self-help that I have seen. I just find it ridiculous that anyone like Tanz could quietly use differing moral standards for something that is common throughout society in many many ways.

          [Hey you went into moderation 🙂 ]

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago