Nelson Provincial Museum, Treatygate

Newspaper error: tonight’s meeting 7.30pm, not 7.00pm

The local paper here in Nelson has advertised my meeting for “” rather than 7.30pm.

(Maybe I’ll warm up the early arrivals with my after-dinner act of performing silly poems and songs — which I’d actually much rather be doing than talking about the uncomfortable subject of race relations!)

Another snag is that my friend who was supposed to be delivering promotional leaflets for the meeting has been detained in Wellington.

So please email all your Nelson friends and encourage them to come tonight — 7.30pm at the Sports Hall, Nelson Suburban Club.

On the positive side, Nelson Grey Power are apparently getting behind the meeting, so let’s hope their members provide a show of force.

Below is the promo and handout if any of you brave Nelsonians feel like handing them out downtown today.

Pages 1 & 2 are the promo. Pages 2 & 3 are the handout about the Nelson museum travesty.

(More on that in another post, as I visited yesterday and now have photographic evidence of the appalling history-twisting.)

Nelson meeting promo 1Nelson meeting promo 2, handout 1

Nelson meeting handout 2

There’s a lot more evidence where this came from. Come along tonight and see it.

Oh and please leave all bison securely tethered outside.

Nelson bison

107 thoughts on “Newspaper error: tonight’s meeting 7.30pm, not 7.00pm

    1. I will. But I like to think I meet the modern definition rather than the 1820-40 one. 🙂

      And thanks for all your comments, Racheal.

      Without wishing to divert unduly from the main focus of this blog, I support equality of opportunity for all law-abiding New Zealanders, not just in the race area.

      I believe to do otherwise would be somewhat hypocritical of me.

      1. Now that would be an ironic laugh. JA becoming a taonga by virtue of the fact he had a spear stuck into him.
        Sorry JA.

      2. John Ansell, 15 minutes ago, in response to the abhorrent behaviour of NZ First’s Richard Prosser’s article in Investigate, Russel Norman proposed a motion in Parliament which has spill-over consequences for the Treatygate cause.

        The motion was passed by Parliament unanimously. The motion was as follows:

        “I move that this House affirm that all New Zealanders regardless of their religious faith or ethnicity, should be treated equally before the law, and that the rights and dignity of all people (in particular of Muslims) should be upheld, and that the House acknowledge the responsibility of all New Zealanders to care for one another, to honour the sanctity of each and every one of us, and to act with justice, equity, and respect in all that we say and do.”

      3. Tropicana, thank you for alerting me to that vote. As you say, very timely for us.

        I do love Russel’s priceless logic – rather like the Bolivians with their pro-indigenous constitution, he wants to treat all New Zealanders equally, particularly some people. 🙂

      4. John, I should mention for the record, that (using mySKY) I transcribed the motion from Norman’s oral reading of it. The punctuation you see above, is mine, not Norman’s.

    2. Lets get it right once & for all – “taonga” meant “property procured by the spear”. The spear was used to threaten or kill the OWNER of the property – a sort of armed hold-up with menaces. Nothing to do with sticking a spear in the property item itself.

  1. Kia ora folks, i have a copy of “Old New Zealand” by Frederick Manning at home. In this book Manning defines Taonga as “Goods, trade etc”. I am not trying to start a slanging match with anyone, that is not my style. I am just pointing out another definition of the word Taonga. However I would be interested to know if anyone else has the book & does the definition of Taonga differ in their copy. Tena koe.

    1. Hi Glenn, what date was your book published?
      I do think with this issue that the definitions as recorded at the time, as defined by and from Maori from the Treaty era need to be the ones given most weight.
      I also think that there needs to be genuine honesty in recognising what was and what was not intended by the parties when it comes to definitions, even if this may differ from the actual wording.
      For example if Maori referred to ‘seafood’ and this was recorded as ‘fish’ it would not be honest to try and maintain that Maori only meant ‘fish’.
      We have this situation with Ngamoko claiming that the only relevant English version of the Treaty is the one signed by a small number of chiefs at Waikato Heads. This is despite the fact that these chiefs intended and thought they were signing the same Maori treaty that the other chiefs had signed and that this was also the belief and intention of the English.
      Clearly neither party intended to have in circulation a number of differing treaties meaning different things to different people around the country. To try and maintain this pretence is extremely dishonest.

      1. Hi Mike, appreciate your thoughts. I believe the book was published in 1880 (but i am not certain, i will have to check), but when Manning first refers to Taonga it is while recalling his arrival to New Zealand in 1833 i believe, again i will need to check.

      2. Old New Zealand by F E Maning was first published 1887 The times he recalls in his writings predate that time by many years.

    1. Thanks Owen. You now have me second guessing myself. I could have sworn it referred to trade. Memory failing me already, that is not good, he he. I also just remembered that i had borrowed the book from my Dad & returned it so i can’t check when i get home. Rats! Regardless, it still seems to be a different definition from the time.

  2. The point is, back in 1840 taonga referred to down to earth objects.

    Even if it also meant treasure, as it undoubtedly came to mean later, the Maori idea of treasure was also down to earth objects like nails – the white man’s steel tools.

    When Samuel Marsden and his manservant came across a chief while out walking, the servant said to Marsden, “That man is a great chief – give him a nail.”

    Assuming Marsden had a keen sense of self-preservation, I doubt whether he would have given a cannibal warrior chief a nail for a gift unless it was of great value.

    Chiefs, when insulted, were not given to turning the other cheek.

    1. I see your point John, i am only a learner of Te Reo Maori, so i have to be honest & say i am not certain of the full meaning of the word Taonga. But all of this helps.

      I also have a lot more reading ahead to get a better idea of what meaning the word Taonga may have had at the time Te Tiriti was signed. Come back to me in about 20 odd years & i may have some idea.

      I have said before that i don’t think we will agree on much, but i must say i do enjoy your blog & have gained a lot of information from it.

      I also appreciate the fact that you are giving a voice to people who feel they do not have one. I don’t often agree with that voice, but i want everyone to feel they can be heard. Mauri Ora.

      1. Oh, btw, Glenn, on behalf of the people who can’t be bothered with spelling your name correctly, I apologise.

      2. Glenn, Oops sorry, I can make my own apology thanks tropicana, I, like everyone else occassionally stuff up.

      3. Thanks Glenn. We’re all learners here, all doing our best to figure out what’s what and hopefully all motivated by truth.

        Feel free to disagree with me whenever you like, and if I can see the sense in your argument I will happily concede that I have learnt from you.

        I don’t see any point in peddling info I know to be false, and I am not in a position to profit from such deception.

        But Griever Maori are in a position to profit from twisting the facts, and do so constantly.

        Lying and treachery have been considered legitimate tactics in Maori society since Maui double crossed his own mother.

        (I learned that in a book by Ranginui Walker, no less.)

    2. Hi John, i hope you don’t think i am being facetious, but i have more questions for you & i am genuinely interested in your opinion. I also hope you will not find my questions too simplistic. I am a simple man.

      Using the example you have given with Marsden & the nail. Was the nail Taonga? When did it become Taonga? Was it Taonga while Marsden had posession of said nail? Or did it only become Taonga when the Chief took posession of the nail? Could it not be Taonga because it was not procured by a spear? Could Taonga refer to anything deemed to be of great value?

      I don’t actually expect you to answer any of these questions, but rather hope to convey my own personal dilemma when attempting to translate Te Tiriti myself without relying on what other people tell me it says. I know you will say “Just look at the Littlewood document”. But then i am still relying on what other people tell me rather than working it out for myself. This is complex stuff & most people would prefer to leave that to the academics, particularly simpletons like me. He he.

      Please excuse the longevity of this post folks, bit quiet at work. Better go find something to do. Mauri ora.

  3. Glen,
    F.E. Maning was, as he calls himself, a pakeha maori, he was in New Zealand at the time when maori words were being interpreted by europeans, and they may have slightly different meanings than the maori themselves put on them,
    The interpretation of “property taken at the point of a spear” was apparently the maori interpretation given by Hongi Hika to the linguists at Cambridge University for the maori/english dictionary that they were compiling in the early 1800’s

    1. Hi Owen, thanks for the link. I have been trying to enhance my knowledge of all the things people here discuss, but it is a slow process due to other commitments. No worries about the spelling of my name………..unless my Mum catches you spelling it incorrectly. Then you should prepare for a dressing down. He he.

    1. The Nelson meeting went well Marvin – nigh on 100 with no media coverage and no letterbox drop- just a couple of small ads and emails.

      I was still speaking after 90 mins which horrified and surprised me but people still seemed interested and asked questions.

      I asked people to be totally honest with me about whether they would actually vote for a single-issue Together NZ Party and about 90% said Yes. That level of support surprised me.

      Chris Trotter, whom I had rung to get him to talk me out of this crazy idea, estimated it could have a huge following, and Bob Jones likewise. Hmmm.

      Nearly all the audience seemed older than me, so it seems clear that older New Zealanders – who remember the days when Maori and Pakeha mixed happily – are our prime prospects.

      My plan is to enlist a team of ‘missionaries’ to speak to every Grey Power, Rotary, Probus Club and U3A in New Zealand, with the public invited where possible.

      Older people have time and energy for special projects like this, and their brainwashed under 30s grandkids will at least give them a respectful hearing and may even be available for deprogramming.

      1. John, A team of speakers/ ‘missionaries’ to spread the ‘word’ is a sound scheme. You can not do it all yourself and I for one would be a starter. Don mac

  4. The definition of the word ‘Taonga’ as meaning ‘property procured by the spear’ is logically and in the reality of the time, exactly what you would expect it to mean.
    Maori had no property or rights to property except that what they could force out of others and defend for themselves at the point of a spear.
    At any moment another Maori could come out of a bush brandishing a spear at you. If he killed you he took by right of conquest and now possession whatever you had with you and the land on which you were standing and also your body to cook & eat and your head to display.
    You could do the same to him.
    Everything of value was only yours as long as you could hang onto it at the point of a spear.

  5. Funny, or not so funny, at work today I worked with a lady whom I greatly like and respect. She’s a white lady in her mid to late 50s and native to New Zealand, or at least she was born here.
    I got to talking about what we talk about on this site and the fact that, for me anyways, is the worst thing about New Zealand. She got quite nowty and said “I don’t know why you get so stressed about it as we can’t do anything about it and talking about it doesn’t get us anywhere”. At that point I turned and said “Can’t you see that that is the problem with non maori New Zealanders, You empower radical maori and their leaders by your self emposed apathy thinking it’ll all go away”. I went on to say “One day in the near future maori will lay claim to a percentage of every house, land and property in New Zealand”. The reply was “that’s outrageous, they would never do that”. I retorted ” You said that about water 10 years ago”!
    I made my point and maybe gave her something to chew on, and hopefully enter future conversation about the biggest con in NZ history instead of burying the proverbial head in the sand like most NZers.
    I thought I’d share that with you.

    1. “The reply was “that’s outrageous, they would never do that”. I retorted ” You said that about water 10 years ago”!

      That has been my argument for a quite a few months now, suprising how few people have even thought about the way things have been going for the last thirty odd years.

  6. I was just looking on Yahoo website and saw the poll for ” Should Richard Prosser apologise for Muslim rant”? The results as from at this minute are 50% say “Yes”. And 47% say “No, what he said was justified”.
    The way the media have portrayed this one would think 99.99% of the population was against him. Yet the poll says something very different.
    I’m just pointing out the power of the media and how they alter people’s thinking; but when a poll is taken the results counterintuitively (love that word) say something else.
    Keep pushing the poll the public message John Ansell, that’s my point!

    1. Marvin I honestly don’t know why the media in general are so loath to champion democracy.

      State TV I can understand, but why 3, why the Herald, why ZB?

      How come Radio Live have now said I will not be invited as a guest on Jackson and Tamihere’s racist rantfest when Jackson has twice told me I would be?

      What are they so afraid of?

      Are the media bosses getting bribed by iwi?

  7. The difference for me is that, as far as I understand it, this wasn’t a slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment. He wrote those words and must have thought about his message, surely? For crying out loud, he an MP.
    He had time to think about making his point without resorting to insulting racist language. What he said won’t go away with an apology, it will always be referred to in the future, despite his apology and tyhat is very unfortunate for NZ First.

    I think it will be a sad day for New Zealand if 47% of New Zealanders think Prosser should not apologise for what he wrote although the actual wording of the poll question would be interesting to know.

    I see Hone the hypocrite is in boots ‘n all calling Prosser a racist. Hone must have a very short memory.

    1. “I think it will be a sad day for New Zealand if 47% of New Zealanders think Prosser should not apologise ”

      Why do you say that? was what he said true? who else except muslim extrmists have been blowing up and hijacking aircraft since the PLO under Yassar Arafat started the habit?

      1. Owen,

        Sad because if 47% of New Zealanders think a Parliamentarian’s racist language is ok then we do indeed live in a racist country.
        Prosser’s unbelievably disgusting and stupid Wogistan comments are no better than Hone’s MF remarks and it ‘s sad to think 47% of New Zealanders are prepared to accept them. I’m not. What after Wogs? Will Niggers be next and is that acceptable?

        I’ve voted for NZ First and might again as way to best use of my vote to try to end the kind of racism we discuss here, but there’ll never be an end to racism in this country if we allow this kind of leadership.

      2. Kasbar,
        You say “Sad because if 47% of New Zealanders think a Parliamentarian’s racist language is ok then we do indeed live in a racist country”

        How can critical remarks based on the behaviour of, granted a very small percentage of a religious group be called racist? surely it was the religion that can produce such zealots that he was critcal off, not any race of people, there are probably muslim members of every race in the world.

        You saw the very subdued reaction to Hone white Mother Fxxxer remarks, surely that was far more racist than naming an imaginary place called Wogistan? If people can get so upset over such a trifling matter of an invented name than the country surely has gone PC mad.

        Niggers have been calling themselves niggers for ever, its only racist when a white man calls them that, they however can call white people many derogatory names with impunity and no chance of being called racist, a bit like Hone I suppose. Why do you think that is? I would say because we have so many PC apologists in our society they know we will only ever turn the other cheek

        The only sad thing about this is that Prosser has deemed it necessary to offer such grovelling apologies for stating something he believes in, and apparently some 47% of other people do to.

      3. Owen, His language is racist. Wogs. Wogistan is insulting and racist. When you say that he’s referring to a religion and not a race I agree with you but I think you’re being evasive.
        And no, it’s not a trifling matter for a parliamentarian to refer to Wogistan. Do you call people Wogs?
        I also agree with you that to insult a ‘white person’ with a racist slur
        is somehow deemed more acceptable, but not to me and believe me I have spoken out about this too. And I agree with you regarding Hone’s remarks – you’ll see I mentioned it in my first post but none of what others do that makes Prosser’s remarks acceptable.

    2. Hi Kasbar, i disagree strongly with the statements made by Richard Prosser regarding Islam, but to be fair i have not yet read the entire article in question.

      However, i do not think he should apologise. I think that we should encourage people to express their views, no matter how repellant we may find those views. In my opinion these views should be out in the open so we can see clearly how other people think & try to understand why they think that way.

      Also i believe an apology from Richard Prosser to the Muslim community is not likely to be genuine anyway, so it would seem shallow at best. This may be unfair because i do not know the man.

      Not trying to start a flame war here, just giving my 2 cents worth. Right, i really need to go find some more work.

      1. Glenn, you are right on track there. Among all those sanctimonious hordes squealing about Mr Prosser’s article, I would bet that very few have actually read it. They are quite happy to go along with what the media have cherry-picked from it.

        Like you, I do not believe he should be expected to apologise, and certainly not be forced to resign. Yes, his article was rather too sweeping, and yes, some of the terms used might be immoderate. But he wanted to make a point without disguising it under bland, PC language.

        To my mind the far greater danger is the endless drive to shut down and punish robust speech rather than debate its content. It all turns into a contest to see who can be the most self-righteous in their smarmy PC-sanctioned statements of outrage and offence. I find that very ugly indeed.

        As for the motion in Parliament from the slimy Russell Norman, it is indeed deeply ironic that it pretty much states what this very blog wishes to achieve, except of course for the hilariously Orwellian priority given to Muslims. His knees were so busy jerking that he didn’t think that one through at all.

        It might be a good time to have a read of this crazy, muddled speech to Parliament by H Harawira, way back in 2006 when he was still a member of the Maori party:

  8. Modern maori language is make-it-up-as-you-go and has very little relevance to the language used in the 1800s. Absolutely sick of these mafia maori with their plastic phoney maoridumb BS.

  9. Some people are just too precious over their “religion” and “culture” etc. Religion is believeing in one of thouands of gods. As an Athiest, I believe in just one less god than these precious religious people. And as for ‘culture’…nothing makes me sigh and yawn like that word does.

  10. Just look at how the word “gay” has completely changed since the 1840s!!! And that is not the only word thats completely changed in meaning!

    1. Yes Derejk.

      Not long ago I was waiting in a car for a friend who has gone into a shop. Some teenage girls in school uniform were standing next to our car, shrieking at each other in the most ear-spitting tones!

      Then one turned to me in the parked car and shrieked
      “Are you gay?”

      I replied “no, not today!”

  11. Kasbar I would suggest that Prossers article is not racist. He does not attack a race, rather he has a go at certain religious followers.

    I agree some of his article was OTT. But the point he was making is that it surely makes sense to put your resources into assessing those from the sector trying to do you harm rather than blanket everyone in order to pretend that all are a threat to avoid upsetting those who are out to do you harm.
    Witness the ridiculous Norman declaration in Parliament tonight where all have voted that everyone is equal in NZ, especially Muslims. What kind of BS, idiotic, warped brain came up with that one? Oh wait, I know. Exactly the same brain that declared all in NZ are equal especially Maori.

  12. Mike,

    wogs, niggers & honkeys – It’s racist.

    If he has a point he wants to make then fine but put in a dignified way.

    What did Parliamant vote for? Did they really vote that all in NZ are equal especially Muslims. Did they really vote for that?

      1. Thanks Tropicana.

        Unbelievable of them to say that everyone should be treated equally , and then add “IN PARTICULAR” How oxymoronic!

      2. Pretty innocuous though except that it is Parliament.

        Another example of the same was in the Children’s Commissioner’s report on child poverty.

        The initial draft of the report kept on saying how poverty was evenly spread throughout the community. But then it kept on making recommendations that “were important especially for Maori and Pacifika“.

        I responded to the invitation to comment on the interim report, on exactly this basis, asking if it is a universal problem, why are the recommendations especial only for Maori and Pacifika?

        The “especially” comments at least disappeared from the final draft. Something of a result, I guess, in which I believe I played a small part.

    1. The other thing about the ‘poverty’ stats Tropicana is that due to the social engineers taking over everywhere, the poverty level has been defined by them as those earning below 2/3 of the average wage. 280,000 children in this category I believe.
      Now I don’t personally have enough info to know whether people living on 2/3 of the average wage are living in poverty or not.
      In my job I see inside a lot of ‘lower socio economic’ homes and it never ceases to amaze me that no matter the squalor they always seem to have a huge TV and nice sound system. My TV is 30 years old.
      Anyway I digress. The bizarre thing about setting the poverty level at this figure is that it does not matter what the average wage is, people will always be classed as being in poverty – even if 2/3 of the average wage was a huge sum. It also means that there will always and forever be people classed as living in poverty as there will always be people on 2/3 of the average wage, at least until the socialists grab total control and legislate for everyone to be paid the same.

      1. Yes, off topic though, Mike. But I made exactly the same point in my submission to the Children’s Commissioner when private submissions were invited. I made the point that if every family above the line gave $10,000 to a family below the line, then the way it had been worked out, the line would not move. Sure there would be a few people moving around at the points near the line, but the end result would be identical. Still 280,000 children in poverty. It was/is a con job. But as much as we agree, Mike, it is a bit off topic here.

  13. I wish John Ansell a successful and productive meeting in Nelson and hope that he garners much support.
    After reading Robinson’s The Corruption of NZ Democracy – A Treaty Overview, the full impact of Nationals about face since 2004 became crystal clear. I now email MP’s when I become aware of Parliamentarians setting up situations or making statements that are plainly detrimental to democracy. I urge other readers to do likewise.

      1. Hi Mary Local Library had a copy. Your local Library should be able to obtain a copy for you on interloan if they don’t have it. Publisher is Tross Publishing PO Box 22143 Khandallah.

  14. More evidence of the perilous state of our country this morning with the news that the Islamic association aided by the Greens intends to hound Richard Prosser out of Parliament for his statement critical of Muslims.
    When Hone issued his more obscene and at least as inflammatory ‘White Motherf***ers’ statement nothing was heard from Mr. Norman and the Islamic Association about this.
    More proof (as if more was needed) that as long as you are not white and Christian you can get away with whatever you want. But woe betide you if you are white and/or Christian and have an opinion.

      1. But what have we actually done about it? What is achieved by writing about it here? Has anyone actually written to Richard Prosser or Russel Norman or Winston First or Race Relations Commissioner or John Key or the NZ Herald or … or … or … about it? Or have we just got it off our chests by writing about it here within John Ansell’s echo chamber? Nothing will change if everyone does nothing. If you have made such a complaint, I for one, would love to hear about it, so I don’t feel so alone. Anyone?

  15. It’s good that you had a good turnout John. Like you said the older generation remember it as it once was and can see through the slimy politicians greasing up to radical maoris.

  16. I agree with the comments on the difference in thinking between the generations; the last part of this short interview with Dr. Ben Carson in the US says it all. Without the education needed to develop an ability to think clearly, our youth’s minds are at the mercy of whatever some boob on TV tells them to think. That is a deeply worrying developing scenario.

  17. Agree John,

    unfortunately it is not a recently developing scenario.

    It has been going on in the Western World since at least mid last century.

    Socialists picked up quickly on the theories of those like Lenin and Marx who recognised that capturing the educational establishment was the only thing needed to win the battle.
    Once a few generations had been indoctrinated to cease thinking for themselves and rely on the state for information and leadership they only had to wait for the old diehards to die off and the victory is complete.

    The victory is almost complete for them in places like NZ, Britain and Canada. Australia and the USA are well underway.

    In my darker moments I believe this is so far ingrained I cannot see how it can be undone.

    1. Yes, I agree with you again. The history of NZ in its present form, that they spoon feed the school kids has nothing to do with what actually happened. David Round wrote a book and he said how Govt grants were given to “historians” if they came up with what the Govt wanted them to come up with. He got so fed up with it he decided to write a book on what actually happened….and got no grant!!

    2. The cause for hope with our issue is that we know 80% of New Zealanders are on our side.

      The task therefore is not to convert people to our position, but to convert them from apathy to activism.

      1. Maybe this sort of carry on will do a bit of converting from apathy to activism, and then again probably not.
        The judge stated “”As I view the evidence, in effect a private militia was being established. Whatever the justification, that is a frightening prospect in our society, undermining of our democratic institutions and anathema to our way of life.”

        Anf the parole board has let the instigator out after 9 months of a two and a half year sentence.

        Guess who? and what was the cause?

      2. Exactly. How may emails have people sent today? I personally would love to hear about peoples’ email campaigns, so I don’t feel like I’m the only one actually doing anything. Lots of mutual back-slapping on this echo chamber while nice, is .. .. well, nothing more than nice.

        Remember, every email sent to an MP gets read. People might think otherwise, but every email is read.

        And before you hit back at me, I send emails to MPs every day. Today it was on another focus, namely David Bain compensation, but I was as busy today emailing MPs as I am every day.

      3. Tropicana you are definately not on your own. I can identify a couple of commentors on this blog who are very active letter writer’s to our local news paper.

        Additionally there are a few Historians on John’s team who do not comment on here but are very active sending out letters and challenging opinions.

        One of them even put on his hat, gathered up his walking stick and marched to Nick Smiths trailer and challenged him on a number of facts face to face.

        I have to be honest and say I am probably the most idle of the team with the letter writing – and commentating on here for that matter!

      4. Politicians who count don’t have long sleeps. And it is stupid and counter-productive to assume or even suggest that they do. It is usually an excuse for doing nothing. How many MPs did you shake out of their long sleep today, Marvin? Or were you too busy having a long sleep yourself?

      5. Trina, yes, I’ve seen the same letters on here as you have. Too few though. I’m unapologetically trying to shake Treatygaters out of their long (40 years) sleep. Most people here think the whole thing will be solved by John Ansell, so long as they keep slapping him on the back. Don’t you agree? Are you one of the back-slappers?

      6. Tropicana; we too send Emails to politicians en masse and specifically depending on the message we’re trying to get through.

        Also sent a few Letters to the Editor and copies of Doutre’s book on the Littlewood Treaty – to David Shearer, John Keys and Metiria Turei – had receipt only acknowledged by David Shearer, nada from others.

        Wrote to Winston Peters asking him specifically to respond to our given questions but nada there also.

        We still think it’s worthwhile doing although others on this site have said it’s a futile action.
        David Round in his book ‘Truth or Treaty’ in 1998 said back then in his ‘What to Do’ concluding chapter that we NEED TO tell our rulers what we think of them and goes on to say
        “It is of no benefit to politicians – it actually deceives them, if we are furious in private yet are courteous & obscure our real feelings when we meet them.
        Our courtesy does us credit but for the country’s good we should speak our mind”.

        This is our view too albeit we are genuinely limited in what we can do physically & economically . . . but we speak our mind in the mail we send out and we are always ‘passing on the word’ to people we meet.

        You are quite correct to point out that we cannot rely on JA to change the country; we need to play at active role as well.

        EG: Was there really no-one up North other than John Ansell and Mike Butler able to make it to Waitangi?

        Basically people need to act outside of their comfort zone & get stroppy, protest – even a vehicle parked outside of Nelson Museum with JA’s flyer on it re Lies contained in display and / or hand the flyers out . . . every little helps…

  18. Glenn I commend your honest quest. The difference between us is only that I began my quest sooner.

    When Hongi defined taonga as effectively anything taken by force, perhaps he did so because he perceived the chances of people acquiring objects by any other means as remote in the violent society in which he lived (and of which he was perhaps the most violent member).

    The key point for us is whether, when trying to interpret in 2013 the meaning of a contract signed in 1840, it is more honest to use the 1840 meaning of a word or the 2013 meaning.

    What do you think?

    Do you think it is fair of iwi to claim that the 1840 meaning of taonga included the yet-to-be discovered (by Pakeha) electromagnetic spectrum?

    To me that is cheeky at best, and more correctly grossly dishonest.

    1. Hi John, i really appreciate you engaging with me. I am not an intellectual by any stretch of the imagination & i believe you would be far better off using your time engaging with people of your own intellect & knowledge base. So i really do appreciate it. I find the depth of knowledge your supporters possess quite mind boggling, but i doubt they can tell you much you don’t already know. I think you need to engage more with your opponents & i mean engage, not argue. In my opinion no one ever “Wins” an argument.

      My own knowledge of these matters is still in its infancy, so i cannot answer your question with clarity at this stage. I feel i need to get more information regarding the intention of the chiefs before i can answer your question honestly. This may seem evasive, but this is not my intention.

      My initial thoughts however are, that chiefs like Hone Heke & Waka Nene saw part of Te Tiriti as some sort of trade agreement. They wanted a slice of the action & they thought this may provide some of that action. But i don’t think it was a selfish thing. They wanted their families & descendents to have a good relationship with the Queen, her representatives & their descendants also. The evolution of trade in their life times must have been astounding & surely they could have thought that there would be goods to trade after their death that they could not even imagine in their wildest dreams. Can we imagine what amazing things our grandchildren will be trading in 100 years time?

      I suspect i may be torn to shreds for this opinion, but please remember that it is only my opinion & i clearly still have a lot of learning to do. Tena koutou.

      1. Glenn,
        You may be partly correct re trading, but the letter in the link I will post here would be more accurate as to reasons for treaty, it is a copy of what was written at the time, in the context of the time, has not been altered by any revisionists,
        One could perhaps raise an argument that if the maori were upset about the colonisation of this country then the blame could be sheeted back to the Nga Puhi chiefs who invited the British to come and save their skins. You will note the number of maori killed in southern tribes by Nga Puhi, only because they had muskets and the others did not. They knew exactly what would happen under the utu laws when the remainder got muskets.
        They were also unhappy about the rumours of the French taking an interest in New Zealand. They were the people who slaughtered Marion Du Fresne and some of his crew in the Bay of Islands, the remainder of the crew landed and showed they were not going to turn the other cheek, something like 250 maori’s killed as against the French crew’s 25.

        This is my interpretation of your question, not necessarily John’s.

      2. Glenn. Are you aware for example that Hone Heke had been in Sydney and in London already. As had many other Maori. Can you imagine how much it opened his eyes? London was massive. London had refinement (not complete refinement by any means), London had carriages, it had shops, it had theatres, it had copious rows of streets. People didn’t eat each other. People didn’t routinely kill each other’s sons and daughters. Food was plentiful. Booze was plentiful. There were doctors, apothecaries, artisans skilled with other than weaponry. And there were prisons for the bad guys.

        Hone Heke may have seen trade interests in all of this. But first and foremost he saw a taste of what a non-hostile civilisation has. First and foremost (imho) he saw that people did not have to live and die and then their children live and die, and then their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, live and die by the spear.

        Hone Heke and others came back and told the stories of what he had seen. Others were mesmerised by what they heard. The Treaty was something Maori sought remember – it was not imposed on anyone – no-one signed the Treaty at the point of a gun or the point of a spear.

        Maori wanted little more than to be a part of this great empire called the British Empire, of which London and Sydney were the examples they aspired to. Maori wanted little Londons and little Sydneys to replace the slaughter fields, the killing fields, that were Maori Nu Tirani at the time.

        Take off the blinkers, Glenn, and put yourself in Hone Heke’s first ever pair of shoes, and imagine the New World that was on offer simply by signing a piece of paper and becoming British.

        Glenn, in the same situation, would you have signed Te Tiriti? And if so, give me a word to describe your attitude to signing it. Enthusiasm perhaps? Or Reluctance perhaps? Or with Ravenous Joy perhaps? Or Sadly for lost times perhaps? One word, Glenn.

    2. Hi Owen, thank you i have read that letter previously. It is my understanding that the letter was penned by resident missionaries who may have encouraged the chiefs to send it. T.L Buick certainly did not think very highly of the letter in question. It is exactly that type of information i am after. T.L Buick wrote an entire book outlining the intentions of the British crown in regards to signing Te Tiriti, but the intentions of the chiefs seem to be scattered willy nilly all over the place. This is going to take some time & i appreciate you taking the time to try & help me.

    3. Hi Tropicana, i appreciate your thoughts, but your suggestion that i take my blinkers off does come accross as a little condascending. I am not sure that was your intention, but that is how it seems.

      I am aware that Hone Heke had been to London & Sydney.

      Yes, in his shoes i would have signed Te Tiriti & no doubt i would have been happy about it at the time. But the happiness was short lived wasn’t it. However, once things settled down & Waka Nene had slapped me around a bit my happiness would have surely become anxiety. But regardless of how i felt about Te Tiriti, i doubt i would have thought some day this agreement will expire. I think they signed Te Tiriti in the hope that it would be for eternity, or for at least as long as the British crown had an interest in the country.

      Shit, that sounds argumentative doesn’t it. Sorry, that is not my intention, but i don’t really have time right now to re word this reply. I hope you will take my input in the spirit it is intended. Just as an opinion.

      1. Glenn, You say, ” I think they signed Te Tiriti in the hope that it would be for eternity, or for at least as long as the British crown had an interest in the country”

        Does the British Crown still have an interest in the country? apart of course from the Queen who obviously is just a figurehead.

        If they do have an interest, surely all the treaty claims against the crown should be settled by the crown? not by the taxpayers of New Zealand, who, as has been stated on this forum already, are you and me and our neighbours?
        It is of course a rhetorical question.

      2. No it does not sound argumentative.

        What part of the happiness was shortlived, Glenn? Examples please. What turned the glee of signing te Tiriti, and of being welcomed at virtually no cost into membership of the most powerful group of nations in the world, into a shortlived experience.

        [You see, I don’t believe you are correct. I think that the perception of unhappiness is of very recent vintage – as in the last 40 years, and only since Black Power infiltrated New Zealand.]

        So please answer what this shortlived happiness was all about. And try to express it in the emotions of the times, not in the modern emotions which modern Maori attempt to project backwards in an Orwellian attempt at rewriting all of history.

    4. Kia ora Tropicana, sorry for the delayed reply. I can answer your question with my own opinion, but i feel we may be descending in to an argument. We could end up going around in circles for years. We have seen this before. I don’t want us to end up like Ngamoko & Mike. I suspect they are bordering on a dislike of each other.

      Instead i have a suggestion, i would like us to try & find something we agree on. John Ansell has stated one of his goals is to have the constitutional review panel stand up & take notice. I do not support John Ansell or agree with his views, but i want the constitutional review panel to listen to everyone who has a point of view & i mean everyone. Do you agree? If you do, i would like your advice with regards to who i should write to & how i should word my letter. Only one or two letters/e mails (i am short on time) & the content needs to be short, captivating & to the point. Can we work together? Does anyone else have any suggestions?

      1. I will soon be writing to Professor John Burrowes, co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel and challenging him to follow through on his panel’s pledge to engage with a wide range of New Zealanders.

        I plan to invite him and his fellow panellists to a series of public meetings between now and July.

        Their response should be interesting.

  19. Wow! Just read the story on Yahoo about Pita Sharples expenses are $68,000. Read the comments and you will pleasantly surprised at the reaction from the general public. Your support is growing JA. I think it’s fantastic to see such visceral and vitriolic comments against this over weight, over paid, part maori super parasite.
    And where on this earth did he get his doctorate from?

    1. Racist!

      Pita Sharples please remember, is an esteemed member of Maori society. What part of what he has done, makes him a “Part-Maori super parasite”?

      How is this talk constructive in a Treatygate context?

      How does this language elevate you above a Willie Jackson, a John Tamahere or a Hone Harawira?

  20. Willy Jackson has done the word racist a big favour. Because he uses it so often during his show and in almost every sentence he makes, he has devalued it mean absolutely nothing to them who don’t care about being called a racist anymore. Just a thought!

    1. Just another thought, Marvin. If Willie Jackson (not Willy), has done the word “racist” a big favour, and devalued the word, then you will not be worried if I call you a racist for some of the things you say here.

      Tell me Marvin, given that the Maori Party has members of Parliament, if it just Pita Sharples who you think is a Part-Maori super parasite, or would any given Maori in the same shoes, be equally a Part-Maori super parasite? Are you being anti-Pita, or are you really just anti-Maori?

  21. Tropicana – I agree with your post about the need to get out and make ourselves heard.
    I have been writing to local papers for around 30 years about this subject. I used to be in a job where I mixed with a large number of people every day. none of them were left in any doubt about my attitude and reasons for it.

    8 years ago I moved cities and started writing to the local paper on this subject. Fortunately the editor is a non PC type and usually published my letters. For years I was almost a lone voice – every time my letters were published the next week would bring a flurry of letters attacking me and calling me all sorts of names. This tends to just get me more annoyed and charges my batteries.
    In the last year or two I have been joined by a number of others who feel the same as me. While the editor is generally supportive he sometimes refuses to publish on this theme for a while to ‘give it a rest’

    I attended JA’s meeting in my town which was attended by Treatyist protesters and I went and spoke to the leader afterwards.

    I am not especially convinced that firing emails at people is worthwhile? They only hit one person who will usually bin it once they get to recognise the name.

    I think we need to:

    1) Get behind JA and ensure his meetings are as well attended as possible. People aren’t to impressed by 100 – 200 people. Get 1000 – 2000 and people tend to sit up and take notice.

    2) Get behind a candidate and party for the next election. While politicians will change if they see their backs are against the wall, this lot from one end of the chamber to the other are all pragmatism and no principle. We need a party and leader who unequivocally nails his colours to the mast and campaigns on this issue.

    1. Mike, I’ve had the privilege of seeing some of your letters. You’re BOP aren’t you? I’ve actually looked out for your letters at times. Good on you. You are a rare breed, and I’m indebted to you. If only there were a few hundred thousand more of you.

      Remember how we got into this predicament. On average over the last 40 years, HALF A MILLION MAORI HAVE BEEN SINGING FROM THE SAME SONG SHEET, EVERY SINGLE DAY.


      And we expect John Ansell to do it on his own, with the occasional back-slap to egg him on his way. At that rate, we should have our equality back in about 3967 years from now.

    2. Mike the first thing we need is to feel like we belong to something. That’s the advantage that Maori have had over us for the last 40 years. They belonged to a fellowship called Maori. Half a million people who belonged to a “club” called Maori. All singing from the same song sheet. All telling exactly the same lies. And telling each other and anyone who would listen, the same lies day after day after day. FFS, even I started to believe them till someone slapped me around, and reminded me to think for myself. I actually started to believe that my own ancestors were animals, thieves, and murderers. To the point that most Maori accept the lies today as being cast in stone tablets on Mt Cook. And even a majority of Europeans now believe the same lies.

      We Treatygaters have nothing so far. We will be nothing till we can belong to something. We don’t have anything to belong to. Mike what do you and I have in common? Because till we do, we will not have anything to cling to. And I in my little part of New Zealand will have nothing in common with you in BOP, Mike, nor with Ansell in Wellington, nor with anyone who turned out in Nelson last night.

      I remember when ACT was formed (and I played a small part in its formation). What made it work, and got up to 9 members of Parliament, with all the newspapers against us, was membership of the Party? Till that moment in time, we were nothing but a loose arrangement of loud mouthed individuals all over the country with not one thing in common. And we did ACT without the internet essentially. We did it using the profusion of Fax machines all over the country at the time. And day after day we acted as members of a fellowship inviting others to have what we already had.

      We encouraged people to become just like us, and become ACT supporters and members. Anything less is nothing.

  22. I agree Tropicana,

    We need a plan. We all seem to be of the belief that there needs to be a political movement with Treatygate as its focus. It needs to begin.

    Is there an existing party we can get behind? I am of the opinion that there isn’t except perhaps the Conservatives and they need to come out strongly in favour of Treatygate very soon.

    The Racheals of this world not withstanding I believe most of their policies would appeal to most of the current Treatygate supporters too.

    But Colin will need to seize the issue and make it his own. And soon.

    I don’t think JA is the right person to lead a political movement for this (sorry JA) and I think he probably doesn’t want to either.

    All the other existing parties have done their chips either by siding with evil or being mute when they needed to stand up.

    So where to from here?

    1. Someone mentioned Nigel Farage of UKIP the other day. My God to hear him speak is amazing. Like NZ, the British press labels him a fascist and far right, or did at least. Nowadays he does seem to have gained traction via the Daily mail, Express and they seem to NOW get behind him when once they ridiculed him.
      I digress. What we need is a great speaker, who is confident in front of the camera and has the charisma and chutzpah to win hearts and minds and win people over to our way of thinking, and yes be much more vocal and less afraid.
      I think John Ansell could do well to have some kind of training to do just that.

      Did anyone see the Pita Sharples story on Yahoo and read the comments of acid against him?

  23. Nice one MKvL. All I get is “If you don’t like it then go back home to pommy land”, (to be more precise Wales). And that’s from white New Zealanders.
    I agree 100% with you what you say and we need to become pro active and vocal.
    I work for a government department and there are spies everywhere looking for dissenters and them who are non conformists.
    I put myself in that box and very often think I’ve overstepped the mark and expect to get myself in the s..t the next day. Funny enough it hasn’t happened yet, but I fear one day it will.
    I’m pretty well known throughout management circles as toxic and most won’t touch me a with a Barge pole for my outspokeness (If that’s a word) and unrelenting non willingness to not tow the line.
    If one day I do get myself in trouble for my views (we all share on this forum) then I will challenge my impending sacking and try to make it some kind of cause celebre to draw attention to our cause.
    We on this forum and JA on the podium are at the embryonic stages of a possible lashback and maybe some civil disobedience. Maybe that’s what it’ll take to drive home the message to them who are in a perpetual sleepwalk of everyday life in New Zealand.

    1. Right now, Overeaters Anonymous are more organised than Treatygate is.

      Right now, the NZ Patchworkers and Quilters Club is more organised than Treatygate is.

      1. Remember some of us have been asking for that “single step” for a long time. (Some of us joined One New Zealand well over a decade ago for example.) Someone has to take that first step. I’m far too old, sorry. But I have been part of first single steps more than once in the past (ACT for example). Today, it is always someone else’s job to take the first steps. Lots of talk about first “single steps”. Lots of back-slapping. Nothing to show for it. No party to sign up to. All we are is commenters in cyberspace. Right now, Overeaters Anonymous exists. So does the Auckland Patchworkers and Quilters Club. Right now, I can pick up the phone and join either organisation. I cannot join anything here. This site does not point me to anything I can actually join. Who is going to take the first step? Who is going to stop the mutual back-slapping and actually do something? Mutual back-slapping will change exactly and precisely nothing.

    1. I have to agree with you, and disagree with you. I have also been there and done that for a long time, the only consolation left is that I tried, I thought Winston would be the man, he could cross racial barriers and get away with it, but what does he do? get the tight five together and make complete fools of themselves, Tau Henare being a prime example, Minister with NZ First, now a list MP with the National Party, Brendon Horan may have had potential, craps in his own nest, Richard Prosser makes a stand and then stuffs it up by grovelling. Surely we can find some one who has the charisma and persona of a Nigel Farage in this country that can carry the flag for democracy, in its modern form, no way will we ever get democracy as defined in the ancient Greeks.

      1. Owen said: “I thought Winston would be the man, he could cross racial barriers and get away with it, but what does he do?”

        That is the key problem right there, and one that we started to discuss on John Ansells old blog thread before we got shifted over to this one.

        Mike Kuipers von Lande suggested we refer to the activist groups as ‘Tribalists’.

        I fully agree with this. You could refer to them as ‘neo-tribalists’ as well.

        People feel very uneasy speaking against ‘Maori’ because we all know it is not ‘Maori’ creating this problem.

        Remove the focus from ‘race based’ targeting to one that is an ‘agenda based’ one and people may feel more comfortable speaking out.

  24. “suggested we refer to the activist groups as ‘Tribalists’.

    I would have to agree with that, many of the most ardent tribalists can lay very little claim to maori heritage.

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