It’s time to stand up for truth

This is what I intend to say at Waitangi today. Just had an interview with Fairfax at the marae and been ejected. Now off to stand opposite the entrance with Mike Butler and Treatygate banner.

Then need to find somewhere to deliver the following — hopefully on the Treaty House lawn.

It’s time to stand up for truth

I’ve come here, to Waitangi, as a proud fifth generation indigenous New Zealander.

Or at least I’m no less indigenous than others whose forebears also sailed here many generations ago from distant islands.

My grandmother’s grandmother was born in Auckland in 1845 and died in 1946, living from Heke’s War to Hiroshima.

The man who accepted my challenge to join me here today is Mike Butler. Mike’s grandfather’s father was the first settler to step ashore, from the first ship, in the first settlement, Petone.

We’re here because we can no longer tolerate the lies being told by our government, and by our schools and universities, and by self-serving tribal leaders, about our forebears, and about the Treaty of Waitangi.

I want to tell my prime minister: John Key, it’s time to start running our country as a democracy.

It’s time to start telling the truth about the Treaty — even if it costs you — God forbid! — some Maori Party votes.

It’s time to stop the systematic brainwashing of our young, who know nothing of the facts I’m about to reveal.

It’s time to stop the appeasement of bullies and extortionists.

It’s time to stop surrendering our sovereignty by stealth.

The 40 year campaign by vote-hungry governments of every stripe to twist the meaning and exaggerate the breaching of a simple document, deserves to be described with that infamous New Zealand phrase “an orchestrated litany of lies”.

Tell the children, John, about Hobson’s final English Treaty draft. The one that was discovered in 1989, and then covered up.

Covered up because, unlike the flowery so-called “official” English Treaty relied upon by the Waitangi Tribunal, it was a direct match with the Maori Tiriti, into which it was translated.

And because both the final draft and Te Tiriti make it clear that the Treaty safeguards the rights of “all the people of New Zealand”, not just Maori.

Tell the children, John, about the words in the Treaty that have been so twisted for commercial gain.

And no word has been so twisted as the word ‘taonga’.

Today we hear that part of the 4G radio spectrum must be given to Maori because it is a ‘taonga’.

‘Taonga’ today means anything greedy tribal leaders take a shine to. Anything they can take off the stupid Pakeha.

But what, I wondered, did ‘taonga’ mean in 1840?

So I looked up the dictionary that was current at the time of the Treaty. A dictionary compiled at Cambridge University with the help of none other than the great Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

And Hongi Hika defined ‘taonga’ as follows: ‘property procured by the spear’.

Property procured by the spear.

I think even the shamelessly one-eyed Waitangi Tribunal would have trouble arguing that it was possible to procure a radio frequency with a spear.

‘Taonga’ was their stuff, nothing more, nothing less. So why are you using the inflated meaning of today?

Tell the children, John, about how the Treaty freed the slaves and abolished the cannibalism that was such a feature of Maori society before the arrival of the British.

Tell the children how the Treaty was the ticket that gave Maori membership and access to the wonderful benefits of the then-greatest empire on earth.

How it gave their people security of property for the first time ever, and a system of law to replace war as a means of settling disputes.

Tell the children about the Kohimarama Conference of 1860, where 200 chiefs gave thanks to Governor Gore Browne for the tremendous advantages their people had received from Christianity and British law.

And yet all the descendants of those chiefs seem to be able to do is complain and demand more.

Tell the children that as a result of that treaty, no native people anywhere in the world have come so far, so fast.

Tell the children what that wise and honest Maori leader Sir Apirana Ngata said about the breaches of the Treaty: that a minority of chiefs breached the Treaty by waging war against the Crown, and were punished with the loss of land – as was the Maori custom too.

Tell the children of the threat by the most moderate chief, Wiremu Tamihana, that he intended to kill every man, woman and child in Auckland.

Tell the children about the warnings issued by Governor Grey that if the rebels went ahead with their plans for war, they would have their lands settled by those who would keep them peaceful.

Tell the children how most Treaty claims were settled fully and finally by 1947. And how Tainui have now had four full and final settlements and Ngai Tahu five, with more to come.

The Treaty grievance process has become New Zealand’s Never Ending Story.

And you can’t blame Maori for taking what your government seems so eager to give them.

What will you give them next?

If I were an iwi leader — and I could keep a straight face — I’d claim the right to solar power. Why?

Because Maui and his brothers slowed down the sun with a net, and thereby invented daylight saving.

I’d claim tidal power, too, citing as evidence the song ‘Beneath the Maori Moon.’

It’s got to stop, John. You’re not running the country well enough to be able to afford to give one race of people $1.5 billion worth of privileges every year.

That’s what we’ve been doing for the last 20 years. One South Canterbury Finance bailout every year, with no end in sight.

We can’t afford it.

You say you’re ambitious for New Zealand. And yet if New Zealand was a state of a combined United States of America, Australasia, Canada, Britain and Ireland, there would be 82 states, and New Zealand would be 37th for population, but 81st for wealth.

So here’s something you can do about it.

You can remove this roadblock called the Treaty grievance industry. A roadblock that forces us to bribe the tribes whenever we want to do anything or build anything.

Because let’s be quite clear, resource co-governance is really ‘koha governance’.

Today’s tribal asset grab is about money, not mana.

And to ordinary hard-working decent Maori I say: how much of that money have you seen?

How come your leaders have had so much money, and yet the bad statistics remain as bad as ever?

What you need, I suggest, is a new generation of leaders who are more like the old generation. More like Sir Apirana Ngata.

We need to remove the roadblock so we can focus on the road to a prosperous future.

A road we must travel together, as one country, not two.

I want to honour our forebears, both Maori and European, who came together to build modern New Zealand.

And I want to include those who came later, the brave immigrants who left their homes and chose New Zealand as the best country in the world to make their home.

I want us all to be equal. That’s what democracy means.

I challenge you, John Key, and the media, to poll your public, and find out whether mine is a lone voice.

Or whether, as I estimate, 80 percent of our countrymen want a New Zealand where all citizens have the same rights, live under the same law, vote on the same roll, and use their taxes to help each other according to need, not race.

It’s time to take a leaf out the book of our champion sports teams. The Silver Ferns. The All Blacks. Teams made up of Maori, Polynesians, Europeans – even the odd South African giraffe.

Teams that take on the world and win — together.

That’s what New Zealand needs to do.

I challenge the silent majority who want a racially equal New Zealand to stop being so silent. To refuse to be cowed by cowardly accusations of racism. That’s just a trick to keep you quiet.

It’s time to stand up for your country, or lose your country.

Stand up for democracy.

Stand up for fairness.

Stand up for equality.

And stand up for truth.


290 thoughts on “It’s time to stand up for truth

  1. To the evasive Artful Dodger, Ngamoko.

    You have hedged around, dished out red herrings, changed the subject, made derogatory comments and done everything except answer these two questions:

    Q1. Does the Maori language Tiriti make any mention of Forests and Fisheries?

    Q2. Does the Maori language Tiriti contain the equivalent of the phrase;
    “and to all the people of New Zealand”.

    And yes, that document was signed – and it is the only legal version of the Treaty of Waitangi.
    It has never been inferred that the original Treaty was in doubt, just the aborted and distorted “translations” over the past 40 years – and the avoidance of mentioning the above two points by our wonderful historians.

    (Any bets on him answering with another question?)

    1. Q1. Does the Maori language Tiriti make any mention of Forests and Fisheries?

      No, it doesn’t mention specifically the words forests and fisheries. However, it does say in part the following; “….me o ratou taonga katoa”. Meaning all of their property or treasures. So, forests and fisheries is implied as Maori in 1840 controlled everything within their tribal boundaries including forests and fisheries.

      Q2. Does the Maori language Tiriti contain the equivalent of the phrase; and to all the people of New Zealand?

      Yes, it does. It reads as follows; “….ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu, ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”. Meaning; “….to all the Chiefs of the sub-tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand”.

      Now, Mitch some people have confused the statement; “to all the people of New Zealand,” to mean European settlers. It doesn’t mean that at all, it refers to Maori people, those who are not Chiefs, usually commoners. If that clause did include Europeans then it would specifically mention them by name with phrases such as, “Her Majesty’s subjects”, or, “European settlers”. Since either of those terms are not mentioned and the continuity of the Maori sentence strongly implies that the; “to all the people of New Zealand” refers to Maori.

      Mitch there is the Waikato-Manukau English Treaty signed by Hobson with the Royal Seal on it and the signatures of 39 Chiefs. You have no proof that it is not legal, only your opinion. Even if you are correct I can’t see any future government changing something that occured 173 years ago. What of Maori the other party to the Treaty? Would they agree to see any change to the status quo? I think you know the answer to that question.

      1. NN said; “I can’t see any future government changing something that occured 173 years ago.” I would suggest that it happens all the time to suit Maori agendas.

        Burn the stupid, out-dated POS and get on with life.

      2. NN, appearantlyTaonga means “that procured by the spear” so how do you come to the conclusion that it means Forests and Fisheries?
        You might also like to enlighten us on where you get your idea that ” All the people of New Zealand only applies to maori, the pakeha would not have been regarded as “Subjects or settlers” unless maori were described as the same, because they too were settlers.
        Lets not forget it was maori that asked the British to come and save them from the French when they realised the repercussions of their murderous actions.
        “To all the chiefs of the sub tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand” How the hell do you come up with the idea it only refers to maori? you are one very sick puppy.

      3. “To all the Chiefs of the sub-tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand”.

        Read the sentence again, the first part of the sentence is addressed to the Chiefs and the second part of the sentence is addressing those Maori people who aren’t chiefs, i.e commoners.

        Sick puppy Stevo? I think you’re another angry old white man.

      4. Ngamoko, to go back to the meaning of ‘Taonga’.
        You say it means ‘Treasure’ and maybe it does.
        Definitions change over time.
        As an example in the online Maori Dictionary is this….


        1. (noun) property, goods, possessions, effects.

        2. (noun) treasure, anything prized – applied to anything considered to be of value….”

        So here are two meanings for the word.
        Yet you only speak of the one and forget the other.
        That dictionary is a few years old I am sure. Nothing to date it.

        Other Maori also only seem to put the empasis on “Treasure, anything prized – applied to anything considered to be of value…”

        In 2007, a Maori lady sort to claim from the Waitangi Tribunial something she felt was her taonga, her treasure. Her husband,
        Under the definition shown above ‘anything prized’ so would you agree she believed rightly and claimed rightly her husband was her Taonga.

        Im not exactly sure of the outcome but Maori labeled her claim ‘vexatious’ and sort the governments intervention. Im pretty sure it failed. Either the GVT intervened, the High Court maybe but clearly the Waitangi Tribunal and Maori elders did not agree that ‘Taonga’ meant ‘treasured, anything prized.’

        Definitions change clearly.

        And so in this settlement process for ‘Taonga’ the definition at the time of the Treaty needs to be taken. Not the definition now. It is the definition of the day which is pertanient to the intent of the Treaty and the settlement process.

        I dont know what it was back then but people are claiming anything you can stick a spear in. You can stick a spear in a forrest or a river or a lake or a sea but it wont hold anything. You can stick it in a shellfish, a fish but it will destroy it which is against what older Maori believed that it was all important to care and look after the land, faura, and forna. So thats a bit contradictory. You can stick a spear in the air and you will get nothing.

        So it really does seem the definitions have changed over time to suit the argument.

        People arent arguing no appologise should have been given or that Maori need to give back the compensation.Appologys have been given, compensation given.

        It is time to move forward, together is what most seem to want.
        People are tired and it is causing disention amongest the people of NZ. Racism is growing. More and more non Maori are standing up and rejecting things the once accepted.

        I used to be happy to be identified as Pakeha, not any more.
        I used to pronounce Maori place name using the ‘wh’ correctly, not anymore.
        I used to accept Maori words spoken to me, not anymore. I dont understand your Maori words.
        I went on the Porangahu, the marae (late 80’s) and was shown around the big waka with a bic lighter and aeroplane propellor carved in it – awesome but I wont step foot on a marae now.
        When I worked in a Farm merchant store (1990) a lovely elder Maori would come in and greet us in Maori, I would respond back in Maori happily but that stopped with Ken Mears in the Wanganui shammozel and even the Maori couple appologised to us for his actions.

        I was never racist but its growing on me because of inequality that is creaping into this country, over the years.
        At the moment, I still support the importance of the retention of Maori culture, heritage and language. We keep going, that may change

        All this needs to stop and that is what we are calling for. The Maori people need to call an end to the gravey train is all we seek and for us to all move forward as one together. All this take take take is destroying this country and if it keeps going tbh i can see us becoming a third world country in civil war. Do you want that?

        I dont but wouldnt be surprised if some Maori will as they might win the war or if they lose, there will be another round of treaty settlements.


  2. This thread is like the ‘Wheel of Misfortune’ and no matter where it stops spinning the outcome will be “You’re all wrong, give Maori more.” Time to re-invent the wheel.

  3. NN serves only one useful purpose: his twisting and reversing of every relevant fact to suit the griever Maori agenda is a constant reminder of the sort of thing we are up against. Happy though to see there are many new outbreaks of resistance elsewhere. It would be a big mistake for anyone to think that the resisters on this blog are alone – far from it. The 80% are starting to wake up in ever increasing numbers.

  4. Hi Ngamoko

    Pleased to hear that “and to all the people of New Zealand” doesn’t really mean “and to all the people of New Zealand.”

    Are you really an English teacher?

    1. A very limp wristed response Mitch. I suggest you read that sentence again in Maori, then you might get a better understanding.

      1. Seemed to be a fair response to me, NN. Same goes for the meaning of “taonga” – at the time, it meant posessions procured by the spear. In other words, stolen by armed holdup – and often slaughter – of the previous owner, or as spoils of the incessant raids & wars between tribes. That cannot possibly include fisheries, and could at best only include territory that the current squatters were able to defend against other tribal groups, for as long as they could. Added to that, pre-European Maoris saw little value in trees, and burned many thousands of them to suit their primitive agricultural purposes.

      2. “That cannot possibly include fisheries,…….”

        Yes, it did JP. Maori tribes controlled all resources within their tribal boundaries and that extended out to sea.

      3. There you go again Johnny Phillips spewing out more of your unsubstantiated garbage. Ignorant git.

      4. Ngamoko, with respect if you want to contest something someone says, how about putting up a link to some ‘evidence’ please.
        I am open minded and not anti Maori, but I see evidence to suppot what most here say but little ‘substantiate evidence’ from you.

        You seem to just disagree for the sake of it.

        Please help me.

  5. What utter bollocks. There were no “tribal boundaries” as such, just lines of defence, not always successful – plus huge areas with no population whatsoever. It is a worry that anyone with such a patchy, nonsensical grasp of historical reality should ever be allowed to teach young inpressionable minds.

    1. “What utter bollocks. There were no tribal boundaries as such…”

      That comment just shows your ignorance Johnny Phillips. Why don’t you check the Maori Land Court records dating back to the 1880’s. They talk about tribal boundaries. You ignorant git.

      1. What an ignorant git Ngamoko. Tribal boundaries pre European did not exist. It was all what could be procured by the spear and changed regularly as your part ancestors testified themselves. oops. The boundaries you are referring to are those that were able to be given some kind of reference due to the British establishing law and order and record keeping beginning.
        This only happened after British rule was established.
        Goodness are you stupid or what.

      2. Dont be so keen to brand Ngamoko as ignorant.

        After all his people are fleecing us well.
        He is pushing us as he knows and can see we are a threat to his people.
        He maybe at a loss as to how to argue with scientific historical evidence but he is good.
        He gets under your skin and rattles us. What he wants.

        Maori are not ignorant, but do work in different ways than whities are used to.

        He has shown he has staying power and he has never uttered a threatening word that I have seen, he needles and provokes and you bite.

        One thing primative man had and modern man has learn is patience and time wears down oponents and alas whities dont have patience.

      3. If I’m ignorant Mike. What are you? Tribal borders have been mapped out since mankind arrived on this planet. In the case of Maori they were contained in our waiata’s and oral history which were later recorded in the Maori Land Court records for all to see.

        So, go and see them for yourself you ignoramous. And take your mates KC and Johnny Phillips with you.

  6. IMO this ngamoko fool is ‘playing’ a number of very good commentators on this blog site. His comments are increasingly pathetic yet appear to entrap commentators into responding to his argumentative drivel.
    I’m very much impressed with much of the content in most of the comments on this site; however, the quality and effort of such comments are being dragged down (and off topic) by this one troll/shill/general f-wit. The effect being a watering down of what this site is trying to achieve.
    Best to stick to the post topic and focus energy(ies) on how to facilitate the common and noble cause or correcting this country’s moral compass.

    1. “Best to stick to the post topic and focus energy(ies) on how to facilitate the common and noble cause of correcting this country’s moral compass”.

      What is the common and noble cause you talk about Mr Ti? White supremacy?

      1. See you are blind Ngamoko, this whole discussion has nothing to do with ‘White Racism’.
        You prove the email correct. If we ‘White’ try to discuss equality for all, we are labelled Racist.

        We are trying to discuss and get Equality for all and for all New Zealanders to move forward as one people. We dont call for White supremacy or black supremacy but for equality for all as one people.

        New Zealanders.
        With a mix of different heritages included.
        One people is not supremacy of any kind.

        Take the racist blinkers off Ngamoko please.

  7. NN,
    “Yes, it did JP. Maori tribes controlled all resources within their tribal boundaries and that extended out to sea”

    Wishful thinking again NN, what happened to the Ngati Whatua boundaries, sea or otherwise when the Nga Puhi got the first lot of muskets from De Thierry? the boundaries were what the tribes could defend, and they could not defend much against muskets. No doubt you would be well aware of the fragility of so called tribal boundaries as Nga Puhi swept down the East Coast as far as Te Araroa. That is just one example, no doubt you are aware of Te Rauparaha’s respect of boundaries as well.
    The boundaries were what they could defend, if they did not want the white mans magic here they should have kicked us out, they could not do that, the proof of that is that we are still here many generations later.

    Do not counter with the argument that muskets were a white mans thing that upset the maori way of warfare, who was it but a maori chief Hongi Hika, who introduced them to maori warfare in a big way, ably assisted by that rogue Te Rauparaha further south, before the treaty was signed.

    Who was it that introduced a system of land ownership that was permanent, after a few hiccups, and could not be taken conquest?

    If perhaps you had stated that maori controlled all resources, such as were known at the time, it would have been more credible than “maori tribes”

  8. A while ago the question was asked – where would Maori be now if the country had not been settled by others?

    The answer to this is quite clear.

    Maori came to this country around 1300 AD by best and latest estimate, barely 300 or so years before the first known European visitor Abel Tasman.
    It seems there were other people here before them, but who or how many is unclear. What is clear is that in a very short period of time they were exterminated from all but the Chatam Islands by Maori.
    Oral Maori legend states that 7 canoes arrived in quick succession from a mythical place called ‘Hawaiiki’. There is no real evidence for this, the reality may have been similar or very different. It appears whoever came did so from the Pacific area around what is now the Cook Islands.

    Through the intervening 400 – 500 years when Europeans began arriving in numbers, Maori decimated much of the land and its resources. They exterminated all the larger animals that provided food like the Moa and repeatedly burned off huge tracts of Forest in order to hunt. There was little left in the land of much sustenance in terms of prey after this time. The only vegetable of any note they possessed to cultivate was the Sweet Potato.
    Forensic analysis of huge Middens used over the whole term of the occupation shows that it was not only the land that had been cleaned out. Shellfish and seafood was getting progressively smaller, to the extent where it is apparent that Maori had so overexploited resources that they were facing starvation in many areas at the time of European discovery.
    The Maori way was to rape and pillage an area of its natural resources, then move on. They had no concept of conservation or of managing their effect on the environment.

    The settlement was by people from the same race and same area of the Pacific, allegedly of an organised nature and by small numbers. The country they came to was enormous by comparison with what they called home and filled with resources. Despite this not only did they decimate these resources within a very short period of time, socially they also degenerated into vicious savagery and feuding. Killing, slavery and cannibalism of family was the way of life. This was probably at least partly due to their overuse of resources and the pressure on the remainder.

    Maori lacked any sophistication in their ability to hunt. Land based hunting was restricted to throwing spears and fishing equipment was basic and limited to tidal and shallow water use. Their inability to manage resources and inability to transport what resources existed meant that settlements were by necessity, small. Larger ones simply could not exist.

    Life expectancy was short. Many Maori were killed in infancy or youth. Maori lacked any abilities in tools beyond stone age axes and spears, no metalwork ability, no wheel or any of the abilities this gave. They were similar in abilities to European tribes of 4,000 – 5,000 years ago.

    So where would Maori be today if NZ was still devoid of anyone but them?
    Well firstly as Maori have had virtually no impact on the rest of the world , the rest of the world would certainly not have missed them and would appear similar to today. Basically everything that exists outside of NZ would exist. But in NZ life would be about as far from this as could be imagined. Maori population, estimated at around 100,000 (smaller than Tauranga) when Europeans arrived would have collapsed long ago due to the resource problem. The arrival of Europeans brought vastly superior abilities in fishing and agriculture that enabled Maori to escape the consequences of their resource pillage. Unfortunately they used the opportunity to utilise other abilities that arrived and massacred themselves anyway.
    It is likely the population would have at least halved and then slowly increased again, depending on the ongoing warring and slaughter that was so much of a feature well before European arrival.

    So today there would be around 50,000 Maori, bunking down in rough huts inside small fortified settlements, unable to clothe themselves properly, growing Kumara and gathering a scarce harvest of seafood. No land based resources or food beyond their own people. No written language. No medicine. Life expectancy perhaps 25 – 30 years if you managed to avoid any major accidents and being killed and eaten by the neighbours or your own family if they felt like it.

    Such would be the life.

    1. You mean you are quoting from that atrocious book “To the Ends of the Earth” by Noel Hilliam and Maxwell C. Hill. What a load of garbage that book is.

  9. Comment from a young part-Maori on another similar blog:

    “Have to say, being on the receiving end of this at high school, I can say that there is an imbalance with regards to Maori.
    My skin is pale, so I was treated as just another Pakeha – and then people discovered that I was part Maori.
    Never have I seen such a complete turn-around by some people, practically kissing my backside due to part of my ancestry.
    Also this entire rant seems to mirror something Mr Peters ranted about –
    how can we be one nation with two sets of rules?”

    Obviously not all part-Maoris agree with Ngamoko, as he would want us to believe.
    There is hope for this country yet.

    1. Two sets of rules Mitch? I there was only one. Well, I guess you part-spacemen need two sets of rules. One set of rules for when you are on planet earth and the another for when you go back to Mars.


  10. No doubt you have all heard of the famous Maori Chief, Te Rauparaha.

    In 1860, 20 years after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, a conference, now known as the Kohimaramara Conference, was held and was attended by the majority of Chiefs and representatives of the Crown.

    Te Rauparaha made the following address (extract) to all of those present:

    “I am ashamed for the evils and the follies of the Maori. Don’t let us suppose that we shall be able to vanquish the pakeha. Let us consider the respectability (power) of the pakeha. Their island is a small one, similar in size to New Zealand, but they are a great and powerful nation. They owe their power to Christianity. We shall never be able to contend with the pakeha. If we continue to provoke the pakeha we shall be exterminated and our lands will go into other hands. We shall become slaves. If you had been to England you would be able to appreciate her good (institutions). The ministers also are laboring for our benefit and are instructing us. Do not let us question the character of the pakeha nation. The pakehas do not wish to degrade us. They do not wish to trample on the “mana” of the maori people. Do not advocate the separation of the blackskins from the white-skins: but rather unite them, that both (races) may prosper”.

    To see the site that this is on Google search “NZETC, Kohimaramara Conference 1860”.
    The comments of most attendees are transcribed, and their views are very, very different from those that the Ngamoko cult are asserting.
    There is no doubt that the Maoris were totally aware of the status of the Queen as Chief above all others, and aware of the laws and governance that they had agreed to abide by.

    Treat yourself to some real Maori history – before it was reinvented.

    1. “The Pakehas do not wish to degrade us “.

      Guess what, that’s exactly what the Pakeha did just a few short months after the Kohimarama Conference the White Settlers and the British Army invaded the Waikato and war then spread into the Bay of Plenty. So much for trusting your mates alright.

      1. Why can you not ever be honest enough to tell the whole truth ?? Fortunately, the newcomer here to the historical facts – Racheal – is now checking the real sources of information, so will not be so easily fooled by your very selective and misleading guff.

      2. From what I read, The two tribes were represented at the Kohimarama Conference?
        Perhaps it came out they were against and rebelled against any part of the agreement??

        Why werent they there?
        Clear, even the Maori tribes that were present there believed they should have been and that as they werent, they believed they were still bound by the decisions made there.

        In those days of difficulties of travel and communication, it wasnt as if the english could just say ‘oh well, we can drive down the motor way in an hour and have a cuppa with them.”

        Tribes from SI attended. So it would seem the two Waikato tribes rebelled.
        Far call to bring them into line for the safety of others, both other tribes and Pakeha.

    2. I hate admitting this but I went and googled it and read the lot.

      Really interesting.

      Seems there were only two tribes stayed away.
      Was it they were anti or ill?
      The report implies Illness.
      Even South Is tribes travelled all that way, no mean feat, to show support for the English Queen.
      Significant lack of support for a Maori King was shown.

      What was very clear was the support for the english Queen, and Pakeha also
      Alas support for christianity also but it would seem 20 years after the Treaty signing, Maori were very happy and keen to work in with Pakeha.

      1. Racheal, its good that you have finally seen that account for yourself. However, I do wish you would not allow your anti-Christian prejudices to be repeated so often. It doesn’t help, and whether you like it or not the early missionary activity was actually the most important influence on bringing an end to the savagery of the Maoris – and they knew it. That was well before an established NZ government or the rule of law were in place. The records of the missionaries also form a large part of the early written history, without which the documentation from those times would be a little thin.

      2. I liked some of your comments and thanks but in reply, it would equally be appreciated if you didnt come to the defence of christianity so much.

        Sure i have earlier shown I am anti the Christian party but how many comments back do you have to go to find any comment from myself re christians? How far do I need to go back and show comments of Pro christianity?

        Sure christianity played a big part and I dont negate that.

        It was a passing comment and I believe there were more important things in my comment you could have picked up on.

        You are welcome to your pro Christian beliefs and to express them.
        Why do you feel I need to be bought into line and not express my true feelings?

        Lets get back on subject.

      3. You did well to get through it all Racheal.

        I have stack loads of articles from Paper’s Past which tell the story of our country as they unfolded at that time and I still have not finished gathering them.

        Not only do we have the news paper reports but also opinion peices that our very forefathers, Maori and British, would write into the news papers all the time providing different points of view and sharing experiences.

        They are amazing to read because as you absorb article after article you find yourself transported back to that time, and you start to develop an insight into how people thought back then.

    3. Mitch I think you will find that it was Tamihana Te Rauparaha the infamous chiefs son that attended Kohimaramara. Te Rauparaha died around 1849. The sentiments expressed though are still very valid and Te Rauparaha was himself expousing peace after converting to christianity a couple of years prior to his death.
      (source: the stirring times of TeRauparha)

  11. Thanks Mitch – yes, the revisionists have much to answer for. I rely solely on the records, diaries, newspaper articles etc. from the day, and the work of those whose research is based on the written records and documents from those times. All else is unreliable and a lot has been Nikora-ed well away from the actual facts. Disgracefully, that shameful process includes a number of so-called “historians”.

    1. p.s. – a big problem is that many Maoris (and others) believe that only Maoris somehow are the guardians of their true history, whereas 150-200 years after the events they have no more access to the historical facts than anyone else does. Doesn’t stop them reinventing events and meanings of words to suit their own selfish purposes though !! And that is what we must NOT allow them to get away with …

  12. Are you blind Rachael? What evidence have these clowns linked onto in order to support their argument? They continually use outlandish language to make unsupported comments for example, that Maori didn’t have tribal boundaries. I have stated all they have to do is to look at the Maori Land Court records where various Maori tribes have not only recorded their history and genealogy, but also their tribal boundaries.

    But these jackasses don’t want to listen.

    Mitch has attempted to use extracts from the 1860 Kohimarama Conference, completely out of context. One thing about old Mitchy boy the part-spaceman he’s a trier, I’ll give him that.

    1. No, I am not blind but feel your eyesight is definitely impaired.
      It doesnt matter why the Conference was called.
      It clearly shows considerable support for the Queen, Christianity and Pakeha settlers by a majority of Maori.
      Tribes from the South Island even ensured their representatives made the ardious journey to have their say.

      It shows that two tribes didnt attend, reason unknown.

      Was it illness or disagreement or a days walk was too much?

      These people do but up evidence and you choose to ignore the truth and just attack with nothing.
      Put a link up to your Maori Court evidence.
      You know it will be impossible for me to find and rely on vaguaries to dispute.

  13. The words below of two more Chiefs at the Kohimaramara Conference leave no doubts at all as to the Maori understanding of Sovereignty and their unqualified acceptance of the Queen as the Chief over all Chiefs.

    “Tukihaumene, (Ngatiwhakaue,) Rotorua:—Your words are correct. Now, listen you to my true oath, and let yours be true also. I have no other words to utter but the Queen and the Governor only (for me). I have nothing else to say. Although a man may say he is a Chief and that his words are right, (I say,) no, he is a dog. The Queen shall be our head for ever and ever! This is my word.”

    “Taiaroa, (Ngaitahu,) Otago: -There is nothing to speak about. I had only one object in coming here. I have only one subject to speak of, namely, the Queen. Ngapuhi, your riches are your own. Hongi went to England to fetch them. He came back bringing guns and a coat of mail. I did not come to support the King: I came to support the Queen. I have no other subject to speak on.”

    From what I have read so far it appears that none of those present supported the Maori King movement.

    1. Do you know why the Kohimarama Conference was called Mitch? It was called by Governor Thaomas Gore-Browne in an attempt to avoid war spreading from the Taranaki further north. It wasn’t about any re-affirmation of loyalty to the Crown although that did take place as your extracts show it was an attempt by the Governor to persuade the chiefs not to go and join the Kingitanga.

      In the end GB failed in his mission because soon after the Conference GB was replaced by George Gray and he decided to invade the Waikato and put an end to the Kingitanga, once and for all.

      1. Those extracts were directed at proving the falsity of current part-Maori claims that the Maori never ceded Sovereignty to the Queen in the Treaty.
        Nothing to do with the reason for the conference.
        Once again you deliberately misinterpret what you read.

      2. The Conference wasn’t about whether Maori ceded sovereignty or not. It was as I stated earlier a show of support for the Crown rather than the Kingitanga. Read the extracts in their entirety and look at the background as to why these chiefs said what they said, rather than just focus on what they said. That’s the skill to interpreting historical documents which unfortunately you haven’t a clue.

        BTW you hounded me for a week to answer your two questions about the TOW. What was that about Mitch?

  14. I see Richard Prosser is all over the news this morning re his comments about young Muslim men flying. Politicians across all parties are demanding he apologise.
    When all parties get together like this it is a sure sign they are rattled. They believe if they can embarrass him and force him to retract then the unwashed public will not take him seriously next time and they will have succeeded in shutting him down.
    I hope he stands his ground. And with a new found public profile and interest from the media he may be able to start generating more publicity about Treatyism. He is the only politician currently expressing any concern.

  15. I guess Richard is trying to raise his profile for a tilt at the leadership of NZ First.

    I think the only comments mainstream media are interested in from people like Prosser and me are those that have the potential to be misinterpreted as racist.

    Their game is entertainment, not information. We either play their game or get ignored – a choice between bad and worse.

    At Waitangi I shouted “When are you going to run NZ as a democracy John? Tell the truth about the Treaty! One law for all!” pretty much straight into the One News and 3News microphones – loudly enough for Key to look my way – but was studiously ignored by the TV guys.

    They evidently saw prime ministerial hand-holding as a more momentous issue than the alienation of 85% of the public’s democratic rights.

    If my comment had had a more overtly racial theme, they would probably have been more interested.

    1. Alas Richard made a stupid, ill considered comment and where I was prepared to consider him, he has some work to do now to get my support. I thought we sort racial equality?
      That comment is not from a man seeking Racial equality sorry.

      1. Richard Prosser is one reason why I gave my party vote to NZ First at the last election. With the resignation of Ron Mark from parliament Richard filled the void as Ron was a strong advocate for defence issues. Richard was gutted just as I was when the Labour government dis-established the RNZAF’s Strike Wing and defence began its long slide to almost irrelevance.

  16. Hi Ngamoko

    Re me hounding you with the same two questions for a week (actually two weeks)
    I wanted to see how long it would take you to give a direct answer instead of evading, side-tracking and ignoring awkward questions.
    Now I know – about two weeks.,and then with escape clauses.

      1. Pointless prolongation of discussion.
        Get back on course.
        Very surprised at your comments re supporting NZ First at last election.

  17. Alas I see that Prosser has apologised. He had nothing to apologise for. I was hoping that he was the one politician in Parliament who had some spine.
    Perhaps not. Only Maori & Muslims are allowed to be inflammatory apparently.
    All he said was that it is always young Muslim men who are trying to blow up aircraft. This is absolutely true. Therefore he said it makes sense at airports to target the bulk of your security apparatus to the checking of young Muslim males. This makes sense.
    We have a program set up for the screening of breast cancer. We don’t screen men, only women. Why? Well it’s women who have the issue and to screen men would generally be a complete waste of resources that can be better used elsewhere.
    Shall we complain about discrimination against men because of this?

    Come on Prosser. You will lose any hope of support from most on here if you become PC and stop telling the truth.

    1. Mike,
      Your defence of Prosser is admirable but he said more than what you state but likely not as much as media state.
      As to your analogy to breast canser, sorry but that is a generalisation and in correct.
      Men do get screened.
      Men do get breast cancer.
      There isnt the emphasis put on men correct but none the less if you go to your GP and he diagnoses a lump, he will send you for a mamogram.
      I suppose you have never had your prostrate checked as you believe it couldnt happen to you.

      Dont belittle Breast screening or breast cancer awareness or even bring it into this argument.

      He is why…
      On December 14th my GP Diagnosed a 4cm lump in my breast.
      While he and Breast Cancer Aweness regard it as serious and needs looking at, because ADHB’s Greenlanes Breast Clinic is underfunded and under staffed, I cant get an appointment till March 18th. More than 3 mths.
      And the lump has grown.
      My GP and BCA believe I have been wrongly categorised.
      Why? What reasons might there be when a 4 cm lump in a natal womans breast would be regarded as serious?

      So sorry its a touchy subject for me right now and those who show ignorance and belittle it, cop it.

      I am currently in talks with media about it so watch the news.

      1. Racheal,

        I am sorry to hear about your health problems.

        I know you are not religious but I will pray for you that this problem can be resolved for you.

        I am not trying to belittle breast cancer screening and yes I know it can occur in men but is extremely rare.

        I could turn this around and say that if they set up a screening regime for prostate cancer should they include all women in it as well?
        Obviously funding is limited and needs to be directed at the areas of greatest priority first. Thorough screening of people who are almost certainly fine does not make a lot of sense.

        I also agree with Owens comment about why money is limited. I have been saying the same thing for 30 years. I have a disabled son who cannot access a single cent in funding for assistance at school ‘because there is no money’. Yet we can find $1.5 billion a year to give to fully capable griever Maori to enable them to sit on their arses and bleed us some more.

  18. Agree with your comment re Richard Prosser, why apologise when you are correct. Just goes to show what has to be done to get into print. Maybe we need an enquiry into how the press is run here as per Murdoch in London.

    Winstone probably had to lean on him a bit to modify his statement to appease all the politically correct insipid people we elect as politicians these days.

    “Richard Prosser is one reason why I gave my party vote to NZ First at the last election”

    Now there is a suprise, I hope you will again at the next election along with many other thousands of voters.


    1. Well said, Mike and Owen.

      The way that Muslim terrorist-sympathetic nations are inciting a jihad points to the possibility (even probability) that we are heading for a third world war; Muslims v non-Muslims.

      There are millions upon millions of non-aggressive Muslims who integrate (as well as they can) into Western societies, but the big questions are,
      “Who will they be loyal to in the event of their Imams and Mullahs leaders demanding they support a jihad? Their religion, or the country in which they live?”

      At the moment Richard Prosser’s comments are a bit over the top but unfortunately could prove to be prophetic.
      Perhaps he is 5 or 10 years ahead of his time.

      I recall an English politician named Enoch Powell warning about racial problems that would arise if England continued with unrestricted immigration. He was labelled a racist and crucified by the media, yet it was only a few years later that racial violence erupted in many areas as he had predicted.

      The problem with integration of the Islamic religion into any existing non-Muslim society is that it is not just a system of religious beliefs but a way of life 24/7.

      It is unfortunate that the peaceful Moslems find themselves regarded with suspicion because of terrorist activities abroad.
      One way for them to engender trust would be to report any
      fellow-Muslims engaged in dubious activities.

      Ride out the storm, Richard.
      The media does not necessarily reflect public opinion.

      1. I agree that the media does not necessarily reflect public opinion – in fact it rarely does, and they must often be surprised by the results of their own polls; which are becoming more & more ridiculously worded by the way. No, what the media does is to try to CHANGE public opinion, and with so many weak-minded gullible people about, it at least partially succeeds. The gay marriage issue is a current case in point. Unthinkable 10 – 20 years ago, and now almost a fait accompli in spite of the large numbers who are utterly opposed to it.

      2. JP, Well since this thread has got way off topic supporting racism against Muslims and now and you now bring the ‘gay marriage issue, Which I earlier got shot for, Please explain the ‘large numbers who are utterly opposed to it.’

        Is the petition with all the fake names, repeat names, mickey mouse names on it that you are basing your comment on?

        Look at the countries around the world who support equality in Marriage and have legalized same sex marriage, UK, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Spain as well as Argentina, Canada and South Africa have authorised gay marriage, along with six states in the United States. New Zealand is slow on this one but it will happen and rightly so.

        I went quiet on this earlier as this was supposed to be about racial equality principally here, but since you have raised it, we need equality fullstop. Equality in all things. Equality for Transsexuals/Transgender folk and equality for sex workers.
        We need equality.

        Yesterday you accused me of having anti-christian views and telling me to move beyond. You also seem to seek to push your christian beliefs whenever possible on other matters here.
        Move beyond and get on to the topic please.

        If this is going to become a site promoting racism to muslims, Im gone. Only a blind man cant see Prossers comments were racist and no politician should have made them. No one should have.
        They were ill chosen and his apology was hardly anything more than vieled and insincere.

        Prossers comments made me comment yestarday he had a way to go to get me back. Sorry but his response and ‘apology’ just really made it worse. Ill keep Winston happily.

  19. RM,
    “, because ADHB’s Greenlanes Breast Clinic is underfunded and under staffed,

    Perhaps if some of the millions, just this year alone, were directed to funding things such as hospitals that all people use, rather than to a continuing rort that is called treaty settlements, you and many like you would not have these unacceptable delays for treatment.

    1. Perhaps Owen if government stopped bailing out failed finance companies such as AMI and South Canterbury Finance to the tune of $2.5 billion dollars that might also help.

      But, alas we don’t hear much squealing from this forum about that little rort do we?

  20. NN,
    “But, alas we don’t hear much squealing from this forum about that little rort do we?”

    I do not recall anyone on this blog site agreeing with the government stance on that issue, the only defence the government would have is that no one realised just how deep the rot was in the finance industry.

    But I have yet to hear any finance company having more than one full and final payment, perhaps you could justify how it is, for example, Tainui tribe that is supposed to encompass all the Waikato’s, gets all these full and final payments, then they are now claiming even more through all the sub tribes.
    Surely the money given for Tainui covers all Tainui, or does it stick to the fingers of those who have first feel of this financial widnfall?

    1. “….then they are now claiming even more through all the sub-tribes. Surely, the money given for Tainui covers all Tainui”.

      That’s interesting based on what you’re saying the only sure way to found out is to check the Tainui Settlement Agreement. That should give some indication as to whether the settlement money was intended for all of Tainui, or just some sub-tribes.

  21. Rachel,
    ” Prossers comments were racist ”

    That has to be the most ridiculous statement. How can anyone describe a religion as a race? There are muslims in every race, even the polynesian race has its share of muslims, even in New Zealand, most converted in prisons.
    Go back in history, back to the PLO and Yassar Arafat, who was it that was forever hijacking aeroplanes, and killing people to make a political statement. Who in the last 10 or so years has ever threatened harm to airline passengers? why only people of the muslim faith. Was his statement a bit blunt? yes probably, but was it accurate? yes. How much money has to be charged for every airline ticket now to cover the security to protect people from these radical muslims? millions, How many grannies, or children have ever tried to hijack an aircraft? surely then it must make sense to target the people who have a history of this kind of activity?

    1. You are correct but it was still a bigoted comment not a racist comment.

      In 1987, an Air NZ attempted hijack was twarted, by not a muslim but a Fijian Indian.

      In 2008, there was a hijacking of an Eagle Air flight by a Somalian woman.

      To the best of what I can see, not all hijackers are Muslims and I am certain not all, infact it would be only a few muslims are hijackers and terrorists.

      You are scaremongering and being a bigot.

      1. “, infact it would be only a few muslims are hijackers and terrorists”

        Perhaps only a few of the total muslims granted, but the vast majority of people who indulge in this activity are muslims, right back to the PLO and Yassar Arafat. And only to make a political statement, it matters not to them who gets killed, as was shown in the 9/11 attack in America. Even some of their victims were Muslim.

  22. Racheal RP’s comments were not racist. Anti religious-Muslim perhaps but not racist.
    He did not attack a racial group, he attacked a religious group. You have done the same on many occasions. Perhaps you are not so different??

    1. I would argue I have not attacked any religious group in a bigoted way such as this.

      I dont deny being anti christians but I dont blanketly label all christians as bigots. I am quiet happy for them to have their beliefs but will stand up against them trying to force their beliefs and morals on myself. I will fight against them being better than others and having rights but denying others the same rights.
      Muslims have a right to the same rights christians are.

      Its bigoted to label all because of a sector.

      1. ” Muslims have a right to the same rights christians are.”

        Go to Saudia Arabia and tell the muslims there you have the same rights because you are a christian, I think you will be in for a very rude awakening. ,

      2. For someone who seems to support christianity, you sure dont show much of it.

        Doesnt it go something like ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’

        Guess you will counter that with you ‘threw the second stone, they threw the first.’

        So you believe in an ‘eye for an eye’?
        If they treat us like that, we should treat them the same or worse?
        We cant be better and hold out our hand (as christians should?)

        Mikes right. Lets leave the off topic promotion of christians, attacking muslims, promoting political has beens and discuss the racism here in New Zealand and how to move as one people. As long as people cant learn to tolerate differances and others, I dont hold out alot of hope of ‘one people’.

      3. Hmm. Some of your past posts suggest otherwise and have made blanket assessments on Christians being bigots.
        Prosser may have gone OTT but basically all he was saying is that if all the stuff we are trying to avoid (in this case terrorist attacks) is coming from one small sector (in this case young Muslim men) then it makes sense to pay young Muslim men more scrutiny when in a situation that they (Muslim terrorists) could be trying to exploit.
        Don’t want to continue this thread.
        Lets agree to disagree and get back to racism.
        From my position I was hoping to hear more from Prosser on our topic when he became an MP as he has a long track record of expressing concern about this. I would have accepted a partial apology from him along the lines of stating that he had been pushing the boundaries, but that he stood by the central theme of his article.
        His grovelling apology along with (I assume as it was unanimous) his vote for the pathetic Norman declaration has seriously damaged his standing in my eyes. I thought and hoped he had more spine. Apparently not.

      4. Richard Prosser vows to stay in parliament despite calls for his resignation. I hope Richard continues to remain in parliament. I don’t agree with him on Treaty issues but I do support him wholeheartedly on defence issues. I saw Richard as being the ideal advocate for defence after Ron Mark resigned from NZ First and parliament after the 2008 election.

        What disturbs me though is Winston’s silence. Come on Winston show some leadership and support Richard.

        As to Muslims being peace loving and law abiding citizens, whilst that may be true of 90% of Muslims there’s an element within that is radicalised and wants to kill all non-believers. Jamah Islamiah the South East Asian equivalent of Al-Qaida led by radical Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar dreams of a Muslim calaphite that would encompass Southern Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Southern Philippines, Indonesia and Northern Australia. Strict syariah law would be imposed that would include either the forced conversion of non-believers or their death. Homosexuals would be put to death and the controversial practice of female circumcision would be enforced. Islamic authorities in Brunei have recently reminded parents of female children that it is their duty to conform to this practice.

        There appears to be considerable effort to convert Maori to Islam particularly from among the prison population which I find disturbing where they have a large, excuse the pun, captive audience. I realise this is off post I have followed the discussion on this topic closely.

      5. NN, for once I almost entirely agree with you. Unlike you, I do agree with Mr Prosser on Treaty issues; in every other way I believe you are correct. That includes your view on Winston’s silence – motivated as always by his strong sense of political self-preservation.

      6. Racheal,
        You are making assumptions with your statements.
        You say “For someone who seems to support christianity, you sure dont show much of it.”

        I do not support any religion, to me there is but one commandment “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” and there should not have to be a promise of going to “Heaven” or “Paradise” or some such thing when you die to encourage one to live by that principle.

        “As long as people cant learn to tolerate differances and others, I dont hold out alot of hope of ‘one people’.”
        That is why I am not a believer in any religion, look at history and what “difference” has caused more bloodshed than any other? the difference in religion. You think that has now changed?

      7. Well roll me in pastry and call me a cream puff! (as Hugh Laurie might have said on Blackadder) Ngamko making some sense! What next? Hone joining the KKK and taking up both types of music, Country and Western?

        Odd how people can see clearly in one direction yet have such foggy vision in another.

        I think you have hit the nail on the head Ngamoko with the reason why the Islamists are so eager to jump on the discrimination bandwagon when they are criticised but are as silent as a tomb when whites are slandered.

        This reason would be their ongoing and increasingly successful inroads into converting jailed prisoners, particularly non- whites to Islam.
        They have done the same thing for many decades in America, eg Muhammed Ali.
        Its all part of a organised global programme. The more they can generate ill feeling between races in a country the better they like it.

        You will find they are very supportive of your attitudes towards the Treaty as it plays right into their hands regarding this.

  23. Yes *truth does matter* I believe anyway, much like a *true democracy* and also direct and appropriate action by the masses against that which threatens them.

    This is a little lengthy presentation yet also very pertinent to the kiwi lifestyle, and the further destruction by the powers that be of our *democracy* and the general contempt shown as a result to the *New Zealand Public Interest* as a whole yet still nothing is done to correct the issues by the New Zealand public until now?, this clip comes from last nights meeting at Mt Albert re opposition to the GCSB bill, thankfully many are not only waking up but are actually standing up to make a positive difference

    To them and their supporters both at the meeting and behind the scenes I say Top credits and well done good people.

    1. I am not fully conversant with the GCSB bill and these days and anything that has Key’s hands on it is certainly worthy of suspicion.

      However I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing if the GCSB is able to help the police in surveillance of citizens provided there is a genuine case for concern – eg Mr. Iti and his band of Urewera Terrorists.

      I am more suspicious of the duplicitous and highly hypocritical Mr. Minto who camouflages his rabidly revolutionary communist intentions with any and every populist cause around. His involvement in a cause is generally enough to entice me to take the opposite view before I even study the issue!

      As for the greasy criminal Mr Dotcom, he should never have been allowed to bring his slimy person, fraudulent money and gold digging wife into the country full stop. Why we are letting such convicted criminals tell us what we need to do to run our country to make life easier for them and their criminal mates? Are we mad?

      1. “Are we mad?” you say Mike. . . a fair and just question I reckon, the boffins seem to think that we are all mad on this site while continuing with their own agendas unabated and unaccountable for their actions to date or could you perhaps mean the number of voters not interested enough to vote in the last election due perhaps to the calibre of the choice of candidates running for Parliament in the last election causing Key to state that reason alone gave him the mandate to sell state assets or any other of the many and growing list of fantastical bollox we the Public of New Zealand ~ their employers supposedly are forced to swallow on a continual yet ever increasing basis or perhaps you could mean the Constitutional Review Panels focus and intent or any other number of a multitude of discussion points bought about since this Government and its coalition parties run roughshod and seemingly out of control tweaking this playing with that ignoring due process etc and in general just doing what they want when they want.

        My answer to your question I dare say would at this stage of the game anyway be a resounding YES! but do I sense a change YES.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s