Delahunty derides again

If you were astonished by Catherine Delahunty MP’s haughty dismissal of Dr John Robinson’s evidence, have a read of this exchange with essayist Colin Rawle.

__________________________________

From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 29  July 2012  1:33 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine Delahunty, I am aware of your correspondence with Ross Baker.

Please find below one small example of real N.Z history by a man who actually experienced important parts of it.

Almost from the start New Zealanders have been shockingly misled.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle.

[Rawle then presents Ms Delahunty with an exhaustive and dispassionate report on the native situation by Major Heaphy, who was there. But that’s not good enough for the Green MP, who only accepts the word of the Waitangi Tribunal, which wasn’t.]

__________________________________

From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 30 July 2012  7:30 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Sorry Colin, what is the point here?

Major Heaphy describes perfectly the view of western thinkers of the time and describes the world from that narrow view point.

Please also read the transcripts of the Waitangi Tribunal from the iwi he mentions as they are available on line.

There are many histories that need to be told which do not reach the media and the value of the Waitangi hearings have been the opportunity to tell some stories that most Pakeha never hear, and some do not want to, but they are of vital importance

Thanks

Catherine

[Emphasis mine — JA]

__________________________________

Author Bruce Moon points out Delahunty’s majestically blinkered analysis:

She condemns at a stroke all white men’s accounts of historical events they witnessed.

Marvellous – none of it counts for anything in her view (and, one suspects that of many/most of her co-conspirators.) 

Then she can ‘prove’ anything else that takes her fancy — intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.

It is a blatant piece of racism.

Yet the Waitangi tribunal accepts anything the grievers want to say about the past.

Notice the difference.

I ask: why should anybody else’s (Maori?) accounts be taken as any more reliable?

__________________________________

The exercise in futility continues…

From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 24 August 2012  12:07 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine,

You ask me what is the point in sending you Major Heaphy’s Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection.

The point is that Major Heaphy lived contemporaneuosly with the events concerned and was directly involved in them.

He was not so much expressing his personal views, as providing relevent data.

If certain views are to be dismissed simply because they are those of “western thinkers”, then this is racial discrimination ~ pure and simple.

Do you so easily dismiss all western thinking and philosophy ? ~ derived as it is from giants such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Emerson, Montesque, Burke, Eramus, Pascal, Goethe, Schiller, Hegal etc, etc, etc?

You mention the Waitangi Tribunal.

This was the “tribunal” which first described the Taranaki war (caused by rebel tribes who broke the Treaty of Waitangi) as a “holocaust”.

Even Parihaka (wherein not one person was killed) was lumped together with this outright lie.

Here is a quotation from Brian Priestly, a one time member of the Waitangi Tribunal:

“Years ago I attended several sessions (of the Waitangi tribunal) while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.

There was no cross examination.

Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question. I should have been.

I resigned because I am basically a puzzler after the truth and not a one eyed supporter of causes.”

Like Major Heaphy, Mr Priestly was/is also a man of integrity.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle

__________________________________

From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 24 August 2012  5:46 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Thanks Colin but we have fundamentally different views of history. It is not insurrection to defend your homeland.

I am of course not anti-western thinking as that is my proud culture, but I cannot agree with Major Heaphy or yourself and I think Brian Priestly must have expected the Tribunal to be a court of law.

Its is not, it’s a process of historical redress.

Thanks

Catherine

__________________________________

From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 28 August 2012  11:22pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z history

Dear Catherine,

I’m sorry but your reply amazes and horrifies me. You are an adult and a politician, not an adolescent know-all.

Of course it’s not insurrection to defend ones homeland.

However, the tribes to which Heaphy referred were not defending, they were attacking ~ and therewith breaking the treaty of Waitangi.

You have great responsibilities to the people of this country. Responsibilities which ought to be founded upon verfiable historical realties, not personal ideologies.

Just as I have done, you can prove to your own complete satisfaction that the fashionable, politically “correct”, anti-European version of this country’s history is a complete idelogical fabrication.

Will you do it ?

For the sake of the future well-being of New Zealand, I urge you to shoulder your proper political tasks and get to the truth these matters.

It is your responsibilty to objectively and honestly aquaint yourself with the truth of all matters associated with Maori history, the colonisation of this country and the treaty of Waitangi.

(The “version” of the treaty of Waitangi currently being used/exploited is not the correct one and has serious far-reaching omissions.)

One who really wants the truth however, cannot begin their search with the  slightest trace of any agenda. One must let the truth speak for itself.

This requires rigid self-discipline and the willingness to abandon, if necessary , all of ones cherished pet theories.

Are you capable of this ?

If not you should find another line of work as soon as possible.

Just to confound the picture you will certainly have of me,  I’ll finish by saying that I have been a life-long environmentalist, I was a member of the Values Party, and I have always been deeply concerned about social justice issues.

Similarly, I have always been sincerely opposed to racial prejudice ~ and all other types of divisive prejudice.

Colin Rawle

__________________________________

It’s been 19 days, and Delahunty, a previously prompt responder, has yet to reply.

The one-eyed worldview of Catherine Delahunty, MP

For a fascinating insight into the thinking of a Pakeha Appeaser of Griever Maori, I commend to you this email exchange between Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty and author Dr John Robinson.

I urge you to read it all, particularly Delahunty’s second email, and Robinson’s reply.

As you read, and perhaps weep, remind yourself that Catherine Delahunty is a member of our Parliament, to whom we are paying over $140,000 a year.

__________________________________

From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:00 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi Catherine,

I was forwarded your comments on the Treaty, which I believe are mistaken.

The promise was kept and it was some Maori tribes who broke the compact by revolt against the government and many peaceful tribes.

I hope that you will read this historical account.

With best wishes,

John

[Dr Robinson pointed Ms Delahunty to his new book, When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience, and the back cover blurb, which includes:

“The account, based on a wealth of information from many scholars and participants, shows how Maori played an active part in the colonisation by Britain, and benefited from the end of bloody war and social destruction, with the end of slavery, tribal attacks and cannibalism, together with improvements in lifestyle, health, food and tools.

This direct attack on revisionist historical accounts exposes the immense damage done to New Zealand society by the recent move away from the promise of 1840 – “now we are one people”.”]

__________________________________

From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:49 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Sorry John, I could quote you many historians who totally disagree.

Colonisation is a divide and rule strategy and there is interesting literature on how the English Crown recorded strategies that worked on the Irish and then consciously applied them in this country.

If you are interested in historical accounts from a tangata whenua perspective I hope you are reading the Waitangi Tribunal summaries, they have brief but clear accounts of how land was alienated and people disenfranchised in a myriad of ways.

They are a source of inconvenient truths from the people who lost everything except their will to survive and to uphold a Treaty which shared this country.

But I suspect we will not agree and I respect your right to this view even though cannot agree.

The colonisation process did not bring health and well-being to these people and a quick study of statistics shows this to be true.

They are at the bottom of our heap and it’s too convenient to claim we are the civilised people, we are at least as war like and in many ways barbaric.

I love the quote from Gandhi when asked what he thought of western civilisation he said it would be a nice idea.

There are many views in this world but when we speak for others and define their culture and how much our culture has supposedly done for them , I get quite concerned.

Best wishes

Catherine

__________________________________

From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:13 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

God almighty!  How on earth can you be so definite about what I say when you have not read the book?

I certainly disagree with many revisionist historians, and I comment directly on such issues.

The point is not to be made in a one-liner and there is much therein, with careful references.

Why not read and see whether there is any sense there?  Then debate, knowing what has been presented.

___________________________________

From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:39 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi John,

I am not rejecting the idea of reading your book but when you talk about “tribes revolting against the Government” it is clear message that your world view of colonisation and indigenous rights is one I was brought up with and taught me little about the perspective of indigenous people.

I read when I can and I prioritise learning from indigenous historians and then Pakeha views which I was brought up with.

[The bolding is mine. While I like to correct people’s obvious errors, I can’t do much to tidy up the first para, because I can’t understand it — JA.]

Thanks

Catherine

__________________________________

From: John Robinson
Sent: Friday 14 September 2012 7:55 a.m..
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: an indigenous account

Dear Ms Delahunty,

I recall that you sent me an offensive and racist email saying that you read and consider the writings of ‘indigenous’ historians first, that being your criterion for the truth.

I wonder then if you have read and thought about Life and times of Te Rauparaha, written by his son, Tamihana Te Rauparaha?

It described features of Maori culture. Like:

“The Ngati Tama cut up the bodies of the slain and carried them to their pa to be cooked, as was the Maori custom.” (page 19).

“About 500 were killed in the battle, four pas were captured and a thousand women and children were slain.” (pages 30, 32)

“Three pas were captured and 200 men and 800 women and children were killed, while others were brought to Kapiti for slaves.” (page 33)

Yours sincerely,

Dr Robinson

__________________________________

Tamihana Te Rauparaha, to whom John Robinson refers above, was, by all accounts, a fine man — the polar opposite of his monstrous father.

He proposed the motion to endorse the Governor and the benefits of British colonisation at the Kohimarama Conference of chiefs in 1860.

He also travelled round the South Island apologising for the depraved deeds of his dad.

__________________________________

COMING SOON: An email exchange between Delahunty and essayist Colin Rawle, which shows the Green MP to be even more one-eyed.