Chris Finlayson, John Key, John Robinson, Maorification, Ngati Toa, Te Rauparaha, Treaty of Waitangi, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington

Appeaser-General to compensate cannibal's tribe for loss of South Island dining rights

Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson wants to pay the descendants of Te Rauparaha $10 million of your money for the loss of their right to capture, kill and cannibalise the Maori of the South Island.

In the words of Dr John Robinson in his book The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview:

Mr Finlayson has made an offer for a Treaty settlement to Ngati Toa, which includes a payment of $40 million, plus $10 million in recognition of Ngati Toa’s former marine empire, $6.31 million for capacity building and an additional amount of $100,000 as claimant funding (the Government also promised to support applications for resourcing from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust).

Ah yes, the CFRT — the agency that refused to pay Robinson for his research on Maori depopulation until he’d reversed his conclusion to echo their politically-correct view of history. 

But how intriguing that Ngati Toa possessed a ‘marine empire’ — presumably patrolled by a blue-water navy. And not exactly for peacekeeping purposes, as we shall discover in a future post.

And how intriguing that the supposedly Honourable Chris Finlayson intends to give $10 million of your money to Ngati Toa for the loss of this marine empire?

I know Chris Finlayson. We were on good terms until I realised that he, along with John Key, were traitors intent upon giving my country back to its former owners, with no payment for improvements.

He is also a master lawyer and self-styled champion of plain English. He has the skills to say exactly what he means with deadly precision. When he wants to.

But this time — as with so many of his pronouncements on matters Maori — he doesn’t want to. So I’ll say it for him.

By ‘loss of Ngati Toa’s marine empire’, Finlayson means the loss of the right of these Taranaki invaders (who wiped out the tribe that had been here for centuries) to paddle across Cook Strait and slaughter, enslave and feast upon the South Island Maori.

Compensating the descendants of their chief cannibal, Te Rauparaha (whose depraved devourings earns him a separate post), for the loss of that right is going to cost you and me $10 million.

And that’s just the appetiser for a much larger Ngati Toa claim.

As part of the package developed to recognise Ngati Toa’s maritime empire, the Crown offers to explore the development of a redress instrument that recognises Ngati Toa’s role as Kaitiaki of Cook Strait and the coastal marine area in Port Underwood and Pelorus Sound… and supports Ngati Toa in developing a statutory plan articulating Ngati Toa’s values in relation to these areas.

While most of us cast our vote and make submissions, the Ngati Toa extended family will have the right to prepare management and planning documents — all because of the warfare of ancestors 190 years ago.

And not just warfare. Also the cruellest imaginable slavery and cannibalism — including the eating of women and children.

And for these despicable acts, plus wrongs done to them by the evil white man that Finlayson has yet to reveal (or should that be invent?) the tribe is to be rewarded. By you.

It is strange and indeed corrupt to make such a generous offer of taxpayers’ money without settling the grounds for the complaint.

As I wrote at the time to the Minister, “The situation as I understand it is in contradiction to common sense and logic. Surely there would be no consideration of a settlement in the absence of a clearly specified wrong.”

Surely not? Yet that’s exactly what’s happening. Finlayson wants to pay $10 million of your money to a tribe for no reason he is prepared to divulge.

Here the truth of what happened in a past century is not to be determined by historians in an open and public debate, but written by the aggrieved party, about to profit from a settlement based on a biased interpretation, behind closed doors and after the settlement is agreed.

Again in the words of Minister Finlayson, “The Ngati Toa historical account is being negotiated concurrently with the rest of the Ngati Toa settlement and will be agreed before the deed of settlement is signed… All settlement redress, including the historical account, is confidential while under negotiation.”

You read correctly. Your head lawyer is rewriting the tribe’s history with the tribe, behind closed doors, in order to concoct a reason to pay the tribe with your money for something your forefathers almost certainly did not do to their forefathers.

What kind of an idiot is Chris Finlayson? Answer: a ‘useful idiot’. 

But look at this next bit:

Even the very little information available shows that the basis of the settlement is wrong. The claimed maritime empire never existed. This was made clear by the Waitangi Tribunal:

“We consider the idea of a sustained ‘overlordship’ to have little basis in Maori customary thinking. … the idea of an overlordship is now seen as the legacy of an imperial rhetoric.”

So even the ridiculously pro-Maori Waitangi Tribunal does not agree with the Appeaser-General that Ngati Toa possessed a blue water navy.

The Maori had the great luck that the colonial power was 19th century Great Britain.

Damn right they did. Imagine if they’d run into the Spaniards. Or the Belgians.

Or, worse, if the tables had been turned and the Maoris had colonised Britain. Imagine that. Would they have treated with the inhabitants — or on them?

(Remember the Taranaki tribes’ discourteous response to being welcomed ashore by the peace-loving Moriori in the Chathams — to capture, enslave or exterminate all but a few of their hosts.)

The concept of citizenship developed through the Cromwell revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the French and American revolutions, and the calls to end slavery (which succeeded across the British Empire in 1833) had become accepted.

The British, like all races, had a bloodthirsty history. But by 1840, they’d put their piracy and slavery behind them.

British politicians and the Colonial Office wanted to work with other peoples and respect their rights. Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi promises that equality.

That promise of equal rights by the then-greatest civilisation on earth to a population of Stone Age tribesmen was evidence that the British, far from being the bully boys of modern myth, were in fact the most compassionate of colonisers. 

But equality is nowhere near good enough for the Maori leaders of today. They quite sensibly prefer the reverse takeover model — especially as our leaders seem dumb enough to give it to them.

This should be the clear basis for constitutional reform if the country is to move forward together, 170 years later.

Instead there are continuing claims, and settlements, based on bloodthirsty conquest. The example of the fate of the Chatham Islanders is not unique.

The Moriori paid a high price for appeasing the Maori. As will we if the relentless Maorification of our institutions continues.

In the case that has interested me particularly here, concerning the south Wellington coast, we find that Ngati Toa showed no respect for Ngati Ira’s love of the land, customary title or wahi tapu.

They killed them, enslaved them, and drove them out.

Now their descendants demand the rights that were denied the former inhabitants of this land.

Words change their meaning. Culture, tikanga, changes with time as well as differing between tribes. Wahi tapu is said to refer to a few artefacts but is then called upon to justify control of the whole Kaipara Harbour.

And of course Kaipara Maori are using wahi tapu as an excuse to block the installation of power turbines on the harbour floor. No doubt greasing the iwi’s palm with the appropriate bribe will quiet the upset spirits.

Tangata whenua once was established by living in a place so that after just ten years in Wellington Te Atiawa could claim ownership and the right to sell that land.

Ngati Toa and Te Atiawa only arrived in Wellington two decades and one decade, respectively, before the settlers. And yet they demand compensation of many millions of dollars.

Now those who have lived their whole lives in a place, even for several generations, both Maori and non-Maori, are refused that status, which is claimed by descendants of the temporary residents of 1840, no matter where they now live.

Dr Robinson gets to the heart of the matter here:

The focus is no longer on a search for the truth. History is reinterpreted and reinvented to suit political aims. Historical accounts may even be omitted when making settlements, or written by the complainant behind closed doors, out of view of the public whose money and land are being handed over.

It’s time to expose the Maorification scammers, starting with the Appeaser-General who has made it all so very possible.

I’ll be blogging on this and more in due course.

You will read of the astonishing lengths to which Finlayson went to avoid saying the word ‘free’ when pressed by ACT’s David Garrett about public access to beaches during the Marine and Coastal Areas debate.

You will read gory evidence of what a depraved beast was Te Rauparaha,  for whose crimes against humanity you will soon be asked to compensate his great-great grandchildren. (That’s right, you will be paying them.)

You will read about the true history of the Treaty of Waitangi, including its fraudulent reinvention in the 1980s that kick-started the Maorification scam.

By the time I’ve finished, the Treaty conmen will be thoroughly exposed, with no big words to hide behind.

For now, I suggest you get a copy of The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview by John Robinson.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Appeaser-General to compensate cannibal's tribe for loss of South Island dining rights

  1. You’ve been unusually kind. An expression like Seditionist-General, or Quisling-General or Traitor-General seems more apt. And we need another expression for the shibboleth-speaking hucksters on the darker-but-diluted side, too.

    By that, I mean we should – in fairness – stop referring to Maori (in general) when we mean the “brown supremacists,” or “corporate iwi elite.” Or maybe even “corporate iwi insurrectionists” or “corporate iwi fascists?” Or would that last one be over-stating their position?

    JA: Maori supremacists is what they are. Or Maori racists. Equality is anathema to them.

  2. Keep up the good work. I look forward to the day when a dis-enfranchised honkey like myself can have the wrongs of his last 15 years pay-packets redressed~

  3. According to James Belich (just a TEENY bit more highly regarded than your Robinson)
    “The Ngati Toa empire was… a remarkable one, the nearest thing New Zealand could boast to an African style “conquest state”. It was a very loose and new indigenous empire.. [and] Maoridom’s first pan-tribal polity” pp. 163, 205
    “In the very early 1840s, Te Rauparaha’s overlordship extended in varying degree over substantial territories on both sides of Cook Strait: Nelson, Marlborough and northern Westland; Wellington, Horowhenua and the Manawatu. At the time, this was a bigger empire than that of the British in New Zealand” Making peoples, p. 204

    And according to the Tribunal…
    .“In [Gov] Grey’s mind, land purchases from Maori were complementary to his military strategy. They would enable him to follow up military conquests with settlement on the ground and link the scattered settlements established by the New Zealand Company on both sides of Cook Strait. Two pivots for this strategy were Porirua on the Kapiti coast in the North Island and the Wairau in the South. Just as Ngati Toa had commanded both sides of Cook Strait before 1840, so Grey looked to the breaking of their power and the acquisition of ‘their’ land in the mid-forties to anchor the colonisation of middle New Zealand… For Governor Grey land purchasing went hand in hand with his wider strategic goal of breaking Ngati Toa’s dominance of the Cook Strait region.” TTI report, p. 306-307

    1. James Belich is a historian, history is an argument and an argument has two sides.

      You toss around the word “conquest” with gay abandon as if it is something to be proud of. Perhaps in the tribal world it was, but if we were to attach the horrific pain, heartbreak and helplessness of this word to you every time you use it maybe you would think again.

      The vast majority of people in New Zealand both in 1840 and now are grateful for the laws and governance that came to this land and it was this governance that changed it from a place to a country.

      Perhaps you would have been much prouder if the natives were conquered rather than negotiated with.

  4. John, It seems silly to argue that Maori are not indigenous. ‘Indigenous’ is generally known to mean any group affected by major colonisation. Maori were in NZ for a good 500 years before any real european settlement, long enough to develop a unique culture right?

    Pre-european Maori history has a lot of blood and brutality, although I’m skeptical about the fetus-on-a-stick account, that ‘ship’s diary’ sounds a little rum-soaked.

    I’m also not sure that Maori should be grateful for being colonised by the British rather than Spanish etc. The British were far from compassionate, it doesn’t take a lot of research to expose the attrocities the empire commited in australia, africa, india etc. Continuing into the Victorian Era. some examples here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/27/eu.turkey

    To argue that the Maori were ‘improved’ by colonisation is absurd.

    Britain was out to expand their empire, expand their profits, and they succeeded. Any genuine ‘goodwill’ came in the form of misguided ideas of white racial and cultural superiority, and the benefits of christianity.

    Your blog seems to focus a lot on the violent episodes of Maori History, and paints them as a bloodthirsty force who are going to wage war on Pakeha when they get their chance. It comes across as paranoid and fearful.

    -Tom Henry

  5. Tom Henry said:

    “John, It seems silly to argue that Maori are not indigenous. ‘Indigenous’ is generally known to mean any group affected by major colonisation.”
    ———————————————————————————-
    “Is generally known.” How handy, Tom. Supported by what evidence, I wonder? Or just lexical bias? And what of the people who were in NZ before the Maori colonial canoeists arrived?

    “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes.

    “From this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.

    Comment by Dr Ranginui Walker in ‘The New Zealand Book of Events’, page 18, (1986). When the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed the “canoe ancestors of the 14 century” were known as tangata Maori.

  6. If one is judged by the company one keeps what pray tell is one to make of this and how would our Courts handle things here in New zzZealand?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s