The ethically-cleansed, ethnically compliant
New Zealand teacher.
The following story made my blood boil.
It needs to be put in front of everyone who cares about the education of our children.
It’s about the cultural brainwashing programme that has turned every New Zealand teacher into a propaganda parrot for primitivism.
It’s the account of a new teacher who, alone in his year group, had the guts to stand up to his training college indoctrinators.
As you may discern from his writing, he’s a highly literate and learned young man. He’s also been a nationally-ranked sportsman.
Yet despite sending his stellar CV to around a hundred New Zealand schools, he was granted the sum total of one interview — and no job.
Forced to conclude that his preference for truth, civilisation and racial equality has made him a pariah to the pinko, pagan-worshipping, West-hating educational elite in his homeland, last Saturday he boarded a plane to go teaching in a country that values his knowledge more highly.
The following are his words. The pictures and captions are mine.
________________________________________
CRITIQUE OF NEW ZEALAND’S
TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTES
By A Teacher In Exile
As a recent graduate in secondary teaching, I have been invited to share my experiences of the teacher training I received.
I shall describe the cultural indoctrination to which trainee teachers are subjected and the flow-on effect this has on school culture and classroom learning.
I am aware of the risks involved in taking this action (my lecturers and classmates should have little trouble identifying me), but I hope that my example will encourage other teachers (and trainee teachers) to come forth and share their own experiences.
It is important that readers of this blog understand the hoops that trainee teachers are forced to jump through, and the limits on freedom of thought that are imposed from above.
Education has always been the battlefield on which culture wars are fought, and if we are to avoid a future of cultural separatism in this country, it is imperative that we end the systematic indoctrination of teachers and students.
THE INTERVIEW
Before one is accepted into a teacher training programme, it is necessary to attend an interview conducted by the teaching staff.
In every interview, applicants are asked about their relationship to the Treaty of Waitangi, and their loyalty to ‘treaty principles’.
“There is something vaguely inquisitional
about the framing of these questions.”
There is something vaguely inquisitional about the framing of these questions, and suspicion falls upon any applicant who diverts from the official line.
In my interview, I circumvented these questions by declaring myself an internationalist.
(The confused expression on the faces of my left-leaning interviewers betrayed their cognitive dissonance: internationalism used to be a left-wing principle.)
I affirmed that all human beings are members of the human race, and that pigeonholing individuals into sub-groups does more harm than good.
(Further underscoring the contradictions in their own thought, the interviewers agreed with me that pigeonholing Maori is indeed harmful.)
At the conclusion of the interview, I was thanked for my honesty; but as subsequent events would demonstrate, there are limits to how much honesty these people are willing to tolerate.
THE INDUCTION
The first day at a teacher training institute is not unlike one’s first day at school: strange, bewildering and slightly intimidating.
Maori culture is very much to the fore, as Maori songs are learnt and sung, and mihis are taught in special workshops. (We were encouraged to take our mihis into the schools and to deliver them before staff during our placements.)
“This veneer of bicultural identity masks
something much more sinister.”
A trip to a local marae is customary, and in some cases, trainee teachers will stay in the marae overnight. A Maori elder conducts the usual ceremonies and formalities, addressing the trainee teachers in English and Maori.
In my year, the appointed speaker was an affable fellow who officially pronounced us “tangata whenua”. I am not sure what authority he possessed to make this pronouncement, but I very much doubt that it would hold up in the Waitangi Tribunal.
All of this may seem fairly harmless, and even fun, in a naïve, let’s-all-pretend-to-be-Maori kind of way. Many of my classmates certainly viewed it that way.
However, as lectures commenced, it became apparent that this veneer of bicultural identity masks something much more sinister.
‘TREATY PRINCIPLES’ AND THE CURRICULUM
Within our education system, the New Zealand Curriculum enjoys the status of a revealed text, and ‘treaty principles’ constitute the moral code. (Commandments, if you will.)
Reminiscent of the worst totalitarian dictatorships,
only trainees prepared to parrot the state’s primitivist
dogma are permitted to teach New Zealand children.
In innumerable essays that are written throughout the year, trainee teachers must refer back to the New Zealand Curriculum and endorse the Vision, Principles, Values, Key Competencies and Pedagogy contained within.
References to ‘treaty principles’ abound in these sections of the curriculum.
Under Principles, it is stated that
“The curriculum acknowledges the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the bicultural foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand.”
The Vision is defined as one in which
“young people work to create an Aotearoa New Zealand in which Maori and Pakeha recognise each other as full Treaty partners.”
And it is further claimed that the curriculum
“will help schools give effect to the partnership that is at the core of our nation’s founding document.”
Woe betide any trainee teacher who points out that the word ‘partnership’ does not appear in the Treaty of Waitangi.
[Or that the Principles of the Treaty were invented in 1989, and the name ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ only relatively recently. (The Maori name for New Zealand in the 1840 Treaty was Nu Tirani, while Aotearoa meant the North Island until well into the 20th century.) – JA]
PROTECTION OF THE MAORI LANGUAGE
The New Zealand Curriculum asserts that
“all students will have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge of Maori language and culture.”
A supporting document produced by the NZ Teachers Council – the New Zealand Graduating Teacher Standards – sets out the following condition:
“graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural contexts of Aotearoa New Zealand.”
The Maorification of tag.
In written essays, trainee teachers must provide examples of how they will incorporate Maori language (and concepts) into their lessons.
In one of my set readings, it was argued that the tag game “stuck-in-the-mud” throws up
“an opportunity to be culturally inclusive (partnership) by providing the vehicle to openly discuss (participation) sensitivities such as tapu (sacredness) and in doing so acknowledges the nexus between Maori and Pakeha.”
Scholarly writing of such low-level, cringe-making quality is typical of many of the texts that trainee teachers are forced to read and to quote from.
I also remember having to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori.
BISHOP OF WAIKATO
Woolly-woofterism at its wacky Waikatoey worst.
The three ‘R’s that are taught in our teacher training institutes are ‘Read,’ ‘Revere’ and ‘Regurgitate’.
This is especially true in the case of Waikato University Professor of Maori Education Russell Bishop: a crashing charlatan whose academic output is a staple of the current teacher training programmes.
Every trainee teacher must study Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations,’ which informs both the Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile and the Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document.
Bishop claims that the guiding idea of his life’s work is encapsulated in the following quote:
“This then is the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well.
The oppressors, who oppress, exploit and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves.
Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.”
– Paolo Freire
And who pays this Bishop for his nonsensical,
sopping wet sermons? You do.
In essence, Bishop’s contribution is the development of a race-based pedagogy built around a series of Maori metaphors.
It posits that Maori students learn differently from their non-Maori peers, and must therefore be taught differently: “as culturally-located human beings.”
Educational underachievement among Maori is attributed to negative student-teacher relations, and something called ‘deficit theory’: low expectations of Maori learners based on negative cultural stereotypes.
Echoing Paolo Freire’s great insight, Bishop coined the following slogan for his culturally-responsive pedagogy:
“what is good for everyone is not always good for Maori; but what is good for Maori is good for everyone.”
(Could the subtext be any more obvious?)
As I would learn, anybody who dares to challenge this kind of sophistry is soon brought to heel.
The following story clearly demonstrates that one must subscribe to a race-based political ideology if one is to have any hope of gaining teacher registration in New Zealand.
QUASHING DISSENT
One of the essays that I had to write concerned the ‘roles and responsibilities of teachers and learners in the New Zealand classroom.’
The learning outcomes for this essay centred on biculturalism, te reo Maori and the historical, political, social and cultural influences on New Zealand schools.
Failure to satisfy the requirements for any one of these learning outcomes would necessitate a re-submission, and failure on the second attempt would mean failure for the course.
Frustrated by the indoctrination to which I had been subjected, I wrote critically about many of the issues we were expected to cover.
My intention was not to be provocative or incendiary, but to assess the issues in an objective, thoughtful and reasoned way.
When my essay was returned to me, I was shocked to discover that I had been given the lowest possible grade.
Even more distressing were the spiteful comments that appeared in the margin of my essay, accusing me of “monocultural ignorance” and of being “patronizing.”
The marker’s tone was defensive and censorial, as if I had no right to hold the views that I had expressed.
What follows is an excerpt from my essay in which I critically evaluate the Tataiako Cultural Competencies.
“The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document lays out a number of competencies that teachers should aim to achieve:
- Wananga: participating with learners and communities
- Whanaungatanga: actively engaging in respectful relationships with Maori learners, parents and whanau, hapu, iwi and the Maori community
- Manaakitanga: showing integrity, sincerity and respect towards Maori beliefs, language and culture
- Tangata Whenuatanga: affirming Maori learners as Maori
- Ako: taking responsibility for their own learning and that of Maori learners
Though articulated with specific reference to Maori, one would like to believe that these cultural competencies are reducible to basic moral principles that are in fact universal.
Any decent, fair-minded, morally functional human being ought to know instinctively how to treat somebody of another culture; it would be an insult to our integrity to suggest otherwise.
Certainly, there is much in the Tataiako document of a highly questionable nature – nebulous language that conceals some very woolly thinking.
The glorification of Maori knowledge, and the attendant accusation against ‘Eurocentric’ education, should be taken with a grain of salt.
We should take heed of the request by the Maori petitioners to share with their young the fruits and the glories of Western learning.
These Maori elders understood the value of reason, science and Enlightenment principles, and they understood that a retreat into primitivism, tribalism and superstition would be detrimental to the Maori people.
As teachers, we may have a duty to people, or groups of people, but we also have a duty to truth, and to neglect this duty would be a supreme act of cowardice.”
A heretical suggestion which the examiner
forced the brave trainee teacher to rewrite.
In the margin beside this paragraph, the marker comments:
“I think you are on questionable ground yourself here, and once again your tone implies a monocultural ignorance.”
When I complained to the Programme Leader that I had been penalised for holding contrarian views, and that the department was not upholding the university’s policy of freedom of thought, she defended her colleague in casuistic fashion:
“My reading of your assignment and [the marker’s] comments was that [the marker] was at times offering a different perspective from yours.
Staff are mindful that this programme serves as a preparation for teaching, and that our graduates must be able to meet the graduating teaching standards, and therefore on occasions do provide a different point of view.”
(Note the way that she cloaks this statement of mandatory compliance in the language of diversity and relativism.)
My essay was re-marked by another staff member, who faulted me for not “discussing the place of te reo Maori or tikanga in either science or English,” and for using “emotive language” in the phrase “the fruits and glories of Western learning.”
Of course much of te reo Maori
is simply Maorified English.
The grotesque quest for cultural relativity.
I was forced to resubmit the essay, exactly as they wanted it, expunged of all signs of a critical intellect.
It is a terrible thing to be conscripted into writing something that you do not believe, and for this to occur in a university environment is completely unacceptable.
All New Zealand teachers must be certified
culturally safe by the Treatifarian Thought Police.
THE SILENT MAJORITY
As far as I know, I was the only trainee teacher in my year to clash with the department over an ideological difference of opinion.
I know from conversation with my classmates that there were others who shared my misgivings about biculturalism and treaty principles, but in essays and online forums, these people were happy to toe the treaty line.
Given the time and money that they had invested in the teacher training programme, it is perhaps understandable that they should have acquiesced in the propaganda.
Most of them were simply focused on passing the course so that they could enter the teaching profession and establish a career.
But what I always found so appalling was the ease and complacency with which my classmates collaborated with the establishment.
They were willing to overlook the systematic indoctrination, and their complicity caused them no compunction.
They acted without regard for the integrity of our education system, and without regard for the educational opportunities of our young learners.
If these people were really invested in the future of our country, its people and its schools, they should have felt much more inclined to stick their necks out.
When we were invited to respond to an article advocating the compulsory teaching of te reo Maori in an online forum, I was the only respondent to reject the proposal.
During a unit of our course on the Treaty of Waitangi, I posted a link to David Round’s treaty-related essays and encouraged my classmates to examine the other side of the argument.
Not a soul responded to that thread, but one of my classmates later described my action as “extremely stupid.”
Cowardice and passivity of this kind cannot be sufficiently condemned.
It is the complicity of trainee teachers that has perpetuated the problems in our education system – and yet this state of affairs is entirely avoidable.
Student teachers: will you join the resistance?
If trainee teachers put up even the slightest resistance, there is no way that teacher training programmes could continue in their present form.
But year after year, no one speaks out.
Let us not forget that Dante reserved one of the fieriest corners of his inferno for those who, in a time of moral crisis, try to stay neutral.
President John F Kennedy paraphrasing Dante.
SCHOOL CULTURE AND CLASSROOM LEARNING
Placements provide trainee teachers with an opportunity to gain practical teaching experience within a variety of host schools.
They also provide illuminating case studies in how the perverse ideas propagated by our teacher training institutes infect school culture and classroom learning.
New Zealand’s cultural indoctrination system
would make a communist dictator proud.
What I observed during my placements were the manifestations of cultural indoctrination, made possible by the acquiescence of school staff and the suspension of their critical faculties.
Treaty principles, it seemed, were not only entrenched in our national curriculum, but also in the minds of our teachers and principals.
Visit almost any school website nowadays and you will find a statement of allegiance to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
If you then click open the school’s ERO report, you are likely to find a recommendation that the school takes steps to raise Maori achievement levels.
From my experience during placements, I noted a general fixation with Maori and treaty issues in professional development programmes.
In the space of two weeks, I attended four professional development seminars, and issues relating to Maori education were covered in each one.
I listened in disbelief to a one-hour presentation on how primitive Maori sacrifice rituals could be incorporated into the study of The Hunger Games in order to better serve Maori learners.
(And this was at a predominantly white school in a predominantly white area of New Zealand.)
Maori learners could read ‘This Horrid Practice’
to see how their precolonial forebears staved off
hunger. But how would that serve them?
The Tataiako Cultural Competencies for Teachers of Maori Learners document was specifically designed for professional development, and there is a constant push to ‘deepen’ teachers’ understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The real tragedy is when treaty principles encroach on classroom learning.
I am young enough to remember being exposed to an inordinate amount of bicultural literature as part of my high school English education.
Nowadays, students do not study Bruce Mason’s The Pohutukawa Tree, but New Zealand’s highest grossing film, Boy.
(This is what it means to ‘cater to Maori needs’ and to ‘include a Maori perspective.’)
Resources that have been developed by the Ministry of Education for teaching the Treaty of Waitangi are widely used in Social Studies classes, propagandizing treaty lies, and brainwashing the younger generation.
I visited one school where male students were forced to participate in an inter-house haka competition.
How is it that in a civilised country where
violence is “not OK”, it is OK to stage contests forcing
boys to rage like savages in the name of “culture”?
At the same school, a ‘He Kakano’ initiative to introduce more Maori iconography around New Zealand schools was greeted with rapturous enthusiasm.
I even heard it rumoured that the NZQA was going to introduce an achievement standard for cooking hangis in Home Economics.
THE MYTH AND THE MYTHMAKERS
There seems to be a general attitude among teachers and principals that uniting students under a common Maori banner has a positive effect on school culture: group identity enforces group belonging, gives weight to a shared vision, and if properly manipulated, promotes social order and cohesion.
Modern history provides ample examples of how those in power have created identity myths to mobilise people in pursuit of their own political ends.
We would do well, therefore, to question the myth that is being foisted on our student population, and to question the motivations of those who have prescribed that myth.
Maori culture, by which our education system now defines itself, is a primitive culture. Primitivism represents an early phase of human development, long before mankind had achieved civilisation.
Primitivism is not preferable to civilisation, and it is folly to pretend otherwise. Civilisation has elevated our minds and refined our nature; primitivism bears the stamp of our lowly origins.
What sort of education system accentuates
the primitive and eliminates the sensitive?
The ‘anarchy of instincts’ made manifest in the haka stands in symbolic relations to the mode of existence from which it sprang. To promote such barbaric practices is to turn the mind away from nobler forms of expression, and to shut out the airs of heaven.
It is anti-intellectual, and it militates against education.
New Zealand’s Samantha Powell representing
our supposedly peace-loving nation at the
Miss Universe pageant in Vietnam in 2008.
Refashioning our schools with Maori iconography to reflect the primitive mind will also have a barbarising effect. As one early European visitor to New Zealand described the Maori aesthetic: “it is all gargoyles and no angels.”
What other nation on Earth
prioritises barbarity over beauty?
The reorientation of our national curriculum towards biculturalism and ‘treaty principles’ reflects a political agenda to enshrine Maori language and culture, and to move New Zealand towards co-governance.
In taking it upon themselves to determine the identity of our nation, the NZ Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education have also been motivated by their own vanity.
They have no business dictating to us what our culture should be, and it is arrogant of them to claim this right.
CULTURALISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Culturalism is defined as the ideology of ethnic politics.
A key feature of the culturalist enterprise is the fetishization of difference, such that ethnic identity assumes almost sacred value.
In a particularly revealing line from our national curriculum, it is argued:
“By understanding and using te reo Maori, New Zealanders become more aware of the role played by the indigenous language and culture in defining and asserting our point of difference in the wider world.”
While it is true that Maori culture sets us apart from the rest of the world, it is worth considering the effects of fetishizing this ‘point of difference.’
By extolling a culture simply in virtue of being different, culturalists encourage pernicious forms of relativism and tribalistic habits of mind.
This is quite evident among prominent Maori leaders such as Margaret Mutu and Annette Sykes. Convinced of their own uniqueness, they divorce themselves from the rest of the human race, and retreat into their own narrow world of Maoridom.
Annette Sykes and Margaret Mutu.
Regrettably, I observe the same tendency in the younger generation of Maori who have been indoctrinated into thinking that they, too, are different.
We would better serve Maori students if we stressed commonality among races and encouraged an internationalist perspective.
A disturbing feature of culturalism in education is that it breaks down the essential distinction between local knowledge, acquired at home, and disciplinary knowledge, acquired at school.
Disciplinary knowledge is based on objective truth and universal principles. It broadens the mind by taking students beyond themselves and beyond their immediate environment.
The culturalist approach of making ethnicity relevant to classroom learning undermines disciplinary knowledge and cuts students off from the international community.
This is especially true in the exciting new era of online education where the proliferation of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and websites like the ‘Khan Academy,’ are democratizing knowledge like never before.
The influence of these resources is set to grow, bringing the best teachers in the world to the widest possible audience, and creating a level playing field for all students.
Online education is reinforcing the primacy of disciplinary knowledge and accelerating a linguistic convergence towards the language of academia, English.
CULTURE: A BETTER ALTERNATIVE
The culturalists are right about one thing: culture really does matter.
But culture (the noble pursuit of truth, wisdom and beauty) should never be confused with culturalism (the reification of ethnicity).
Educators need to learn the difference.
To illustrate this point, we might compare the Renaissance movements in both European and Maori history.
The European Renaissance involved looking outward to acquire new learning; the Maori Renaissance involved looking inward to advance a political cause.
So why is it that our schools teach the latter to the exclusion of the former?
An education system that is committed to culture, as opposed to culturalism, should reflect the humanist ideals of the European Renaissance.
It should pass on “the best that has been said and thought,” and not tailor learning to specific ethnic groups.
Western learning represents a high-water mark in the history of mankind, and this is why it dominates school (and university) curriculums.
In other parts of the world, people have embraced our intellectual traditions, and increasingly, they are beating us at our own game. Like all serious-minded people, they understand that “we see further because we stand on the shoulders of giants.”
One woman who benefited from an education in culture is Dame Kiri Te Kanawa.
She stands as an example to her people (and to the New Zealand education system) of what Maori can achieve if they aspire to excellence on a global stage.
What would she make of Russell Bishop’s ‘Culturally Responsive Pedagogy of Relations’?
And how might her life have unfolded had she been taken aside at school and told that she learnt differently from her non-Maori peers?
The race that counts is the human race.
Dame Kiri Te Kanawa succeeded not because she was treated differently from others but because she was treated the same.
She was also given the best that our culture can offer, and students deserve nothing less.
WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?
As New Zealand’s educational ranking continues to slide in international tables, the National Party rolls out managerial solutions and promises more money for teachers.
No politician has dared to question what is being taught in our classrooms, what is being taught in our teacher training institutes, and what is being prescribed by our national curriculum.
If our education system is to regain its credibility, there must be a return to disciplinary knowledge and an end to culturalist influence.
(If we require a model, the British Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, has executed precisely these moves in the past two years, rewriting both the History and the English high school curriculums.)
‘Treaty principles’ must be removed from our national curriculum and the cultural indoctrination of students and teachers must cease. The ‘cult of biculturalism’ is wasting teachers’ precious time, and it is producing mind rot in the classroom.
If everyone who reads this post sends the link
to every teacher and trainee teacher they know,
the debate will snowball and a hero will emerge.
In this post, I have provided my own personal account of the teacher training that I received.
Every teacher has his/her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.
I encourage all members of my profession to share their stories of ‘treaty absurdity’ by leaving a comment below.
A lone voice has little force in this context, but if we can catalogue our concerns and describe our experiences, we may create the groundswell of opposition that is so desperately needed.
____________________________________
Now back to me, the blog owner. I thank A Teacher In Exile for sending me his story. I’m proud to post it.
I share his hope that other teachers will now come forward with their own stories. Please urge them to do so.
Tell them that even their anonymous accounts, added together, will apply crucial pressure to the propaganda parrot trainers. With enough pressure to tell the truth, these habitual liars will have no choice but to back down.
So let’s get debate raging in staffrooms up and down the land. Send this to everyone you know in education. Every principal. Every Education Ministry employee. Every teacher
Ask every trainee teacher, ‘Do you have a noble ambition to inspire our children with “the best that has been said and thought”? Or will you be content to be a propaganda parrot for the state?’
In the war of ideas between civilisation and primitivism, there is no more important battleground than the nation’s classrooms.
If you’re a teacher or trainee teacher and really do want to make a difference to New Zealand, then our children and generations yet unborn need you to stand up now.
treatygate.wordpress.com 
Shades of Anna Penn and the cultural sensitivity in nursing claptrap. When someone is naked on the operating table, all sensitivities are off.
Another Anna Penn is precisely what is required, Simon.
If we send this post to enough disgruntled teachers, principals, trainee teachers and other education workers, then cometh the hour, cometh the Anna.
You are one stupid whining embarrassing white guy John – truly you are a shameful example of weak white maledom . To have you out there pretending to be a saviour of my culture and gender makes me want to hunt you down
To spend your days on this claptrap you in need gimp is pathetic. A true waste of space from an irredeemably damaged failure. Unfortunately your genetic line was damaged when it reached you and you ‘ain’t never gonna be no human being’
Why thank you – your comment is invaluable in highlight the problem.
While you make the statement in your writing, “Any decent, fair-minded, morally functional human being ought to know instinctively how to treat somebody of another culture; it would be an insult to our integrity to suggest otherwise.” there is nothing to suggest that you have any idea on how to do that. The way that you describe Maori culture is concerning. I am surprised you qualified at all. It seems to me that the material you were being presented with in regard to Maori culture hit a raw nerve. The challenge for us as educators and as NZers is to address some of the systems of institutionalised racism that lead to poor outcomes for a group of people. Your understanding that Maori culture is a primitive culture appears to show a lack of the intellectualism you so proudly proclaim. Perhaps if you had engaged in the material being presented at the University you attended and tried to address some of your own biases, you be able to demonstrate that you are a fair-minded, morally functioning human that knows how to treat someone of another culture.
Hi John,
Having served on a board of trustee’s this article has come as no surprise, in my capacity as a board member I stood up to the school and kept my daughter in the library learning to improve here reading rather than indoctrination 20 years ago.
This is a vary serious issue now as it was then also……
Anyone that cannot observe the total truth in your article is extremely delusional.
Truth against the world 🌎
When we get to unelected list MP’s promoted to ministerial positions, Education and Attorney General/Treaty Settlements portfolio’s then it shows the line of thinking of the present PM and cabinet. The idea that they needed support from a party based on race is not true. What to do? I do believe a great number of people are waking up to this insidious glorification of a culture that once belonged to the Polynesian people who settled in New Zealand and called themselves maori, but over time has become an amalgamation of cultures that has provided us with a Kiwi culture. The idea that we go back to stone age principles is surely manifested in the practice of the haka at every opportunity. Also the use of the Hongi as a greeting would be a very good way to spread Ebola if it ever gets to these shores,as it was no doubt a major cause of the spread of influenza many years ago.
Why am I not suprised? Shocking though to hear all the details and have my worst fears confirmed. This needs to be broadcast out there for everyone to know what their kids are learning from brainwashed teachers.
I gather the person who has enlightened us is not teaching. I doubt he would be employable anyway with his reluctance to bow to the Maori indoctrination.
Thank goodness mine are past school age. However there are grandchildren to worry about but mine all live in Australia. Another blessing.
maybe You should all bugger off to racist Pig Australia Also, You Bigots…!!!
You are clearly too blind and too indoctrinated to see that you are the bigot!!
Very sad state of affairs. “I know from conversation with my classmates that there were others who shared my misgivings about biculturalism and treaty principles, but in essays and online forums, these people were happy to toe the treaty line” Alas, this attitude seems endemic in all areas of New Zealand.
One of the few hopes for the future of NZ is to vote Conservative at the next election, because their bottom line policy if National needs their support is that all forms of racism MUST be eliminated from all legislation, abolition of Maori parliamentary seats, elimination of those non-elected racists to Auckland City committees, etc. How can we possible have permitted this overt primitive racism to become so entrenched in all aspects of life in this modern country?
I’m not sure about that Mike. Last time I talked to Colin Craig, he was only talking about having a referendum to get rid of the Maori parliamentary seats.
In the absence of any other issue that will get them traction, both the Conservatives and ACT need to go hard on racial favouritism.
Are they doing it? Not so far. They need Winston’s mongrel. (But Winston himself will do nothing.)
Of the two parties, the Conservatives have the best race policy, and the strongest commitment to it. But they have little chance now of enforcing it unless they do something very bold very soon.
ACT have the guaranteed seat and a leader who has finally woken up to the potential of campaigning to abolish racist seats, which according to the party president is bringing in a tide of donations.
I don’t think you are correct in that, John. The abolition of racism is a basic policy of the Conservatives, and that is not negotiable. The matter of binding referenda is a bit more negotiable, and a referendum on that would be quite acceptable and supported by many. Could someone else (Colin Craig?) please confirm the non-negotiable aspect of racism elimination?
Mike, the Conservatives need to understand that they are in a race with ACT and NZ First, who have identical policies in important areas.
So Colin is going to have to trump Winston and Jamie Whyte on those policies to have any chance.
At the moment, he’s toast. After a string of bad headlines and some very bad advertising advice, his binding referendum policy is his only ace.
But that alone will not excite people.
He needs to give them an example of the sort of thing the public could achieve with a referendum that their politicians would never do by themselves.
Overseas experience shows that the public will go where politicians fear to tread.
The crazy Californians provided an example of why referendums must not allow people to vote themselves money.
The sensible Swiss used a binding referendum to ban minarets on mosques.
That sent a signal to their politicians that “the sovereign” (as Swiss politicians call the people) were in no mood for the Islamisation that has plagued the less direct European democracies.
New Zealanders would certainly use a referendum to abolish the Maori seats. People would be very excited to learn they could do that, because their useless politicians sure as hell won’t.
I don’t know why Colin has set the referendum threshold so absurdly high. What’s wrong with a simple democratic majority?
With a supermajority, sure, the Maori seats would be abolished. (80% support that.)
But it’s possible some other aspects of racial favouritism, while opposed by well over 50%, may struggle to exceed the supermajority figure. (I can’t remember whether it’s 66% or 75%.)
Then again, in twelve polls that I’m aware of, the figure only once dipped below 75% and that was in the Wairoa council referendum, where half of the voters were Maori.
BINDING REFERENDUM ON MAORI SEATS. Those five words on billboards all round New Zealand will get Colin Craig into Parliament. Nothing else will.
On less than 1%, it’s an easy call. He’s literally got nothing to lose.
Sensible thoughts, John, when applied to the total electorate. I think Colin Craig heads the only party which has said that the abolishing of racism is non-negotiable but perhaps that is too fine a point to resonate with the many thousands needed to vote Conservative.
NZ FIrst’s policies are going along these lines, and they are less “fundamental” than the Connies.
Their policies are good, common sense, personal responsibility ones.
A vote for the Connies will be wasted, a vote for NZ First may not.
Sadly your simplistic critic of culturalism overlooks the fact that you are speaking from the dominant culture which has for centuries imposed its reductionist norms on women, indigenous peoples, homosexuals and other marginalised peoples. Western culture is not the truth, the way, and the light – it has is flawed, primitive, it has some good and many despicable truths. It is merely one of thousands of cultures that all have a right to speak and be included in the global world.
Yes, Western civilisation is one of many. It is also, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the most successful. It has given the world the vast majority of ideas, institutions and products that have contributed to most countries’ vastly improved living standards and life expectancy over the last 200 years.
We should be very proud of our culture, and I am. You condemn it while benefiting from it enormously.
The difference between Western culture and Maori culture is that it recognised its violent and intolerant side, and changed. Maori culture, like Islam, remains far too violent and continues to discriminate against women. When will it change?
KIA ORA…TAUTOKO TE KORERO E HOA, MAURI ORA…!!!
THANK YOU KY ON
TAUTOKO MAURI ORA E HOA
Yes and western culture has shown that even with global success it cannot stop its violent exploitations of others by force . Even after the flowering of civilised ideas the light that was western thinking was taken over by money chasers and their sycophantic slaves…..like you john trying to say that western civilisation has changed or is different from other warlike people who have not seen the way..(.. in fact all the west has now is the skill of being sneaky criminals and making most of the weapons … as I say that is thanks to traitors like yourself – race traitors and cultural traitors who have chickened out of western society and now attack it by parroting alt right ( =old fashioned bigots)inanities and ritual trigger words
PATHETIC ANTIWHITE ANTIWEST LYING COWARD
I distinctly hate apologists for western failures….in the renaissance John you would not have been one of the great thinkers- you would have been opposing them because you are a not creative or free…. just whiny
I’ve reblogged this story John. We need to get this information out as widely as possible!
Good stuff Aamiene. Another teacher should be posting on his experience soon.
The latest capitulation from that ancient Ngai Tahu seat of learning, the University of Canterbury:
‘I am pleased to announce that the UC Council has agreed to change the names of two key buildings on campus.
‘The fully-remediated Registry building and the James Hight building will now be known as Matariki and Puaka-James Hight. Appropriate signage will appear in due course.
‘Matariki reopens next week for the first time since the February 2011 earthquake. In the Māori language, Matariki is both the name of a small distinctive star cluster (Pleiades) and the season of its first rising in late May or early June, and is seen as the beginning of the New Year. In traditional times, Matariki was a season to celebrate and to prepare the ground for the coming year. The name has been specially gifted by Ngāi Tahu to UC.
‘This iconic building will be the new hub for front line services to all students. It will also be the home of the University Council and the Vice-Chancellor’s Office.
‘The similarly “star” themed Puaka-James Hight building is named after the brightest star in the constellation Orion, which rises at about the same time as Matariki and is also associated with the start of the New Year.
‘These new names reflect the growing strength of UC’s relationship with Ngāi Tahu and the mana of Te Ao Māori at the heart of the UC campus.
‘I hope you will join with me in celebrating these new names which mark a new chapter in UC’s transformation.
‘Dr John Wood
Chancellor’
I say immediately stop all taxpayer funding of UC!
MATARKI AND KWANZA – SISTER-CELEBRATIONS OF MARXIST-LENINIST IDENTITY POLITICS
Organised Matariki Festivals are a comparatively recent race-separatist fabrication.
The Carter Observatory’s learning and programming manager, John Field, said in a 2013 article published onnwww.stuff.co.nz:
“If you went back about 15 years, no-one had heard of Matariki. It was only celebrated in the far north or middle of the North Island,” he said. “After Te Reo became more popular, Matariki became much more of a celebration.”
According to Te Ara Encyclopedia of NZ:
“Matariki celebrations were popular before the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand, and they continued into the 1900s. Gradually they dwindled, with one of the last traditional festivals recorded in the 1940s.
“In 2000, Matariki celebrations were revived. Their increasing popularity has led to some [race separatists] to suggest that Matariki should replace the Queen’s birthday as a national holiday.
“When Te Rangi Huata organised his first Matariki celebrations in Hastings in 2000, about 500 people joined him. In 2003, 15,000 people came. Te Rangi Huata believes that Matariki is becoming more popular because it celebrates Māori culture and in doing so brings together all New Zealanders: ‘’t’s becoming a little like Thanksgiving or Halloween, except it’s a celebration of the Maori culture here in (Aotearoa) New Zealand. It’s New Zealand’s Thanksgiving.'”
In your dreams, buddy.
Matariki clearly has nothing to do with bringing groups together. The underlying agenda is to foster a race-separatist consciousness in part-Maori along much the same lines as the made-up Kwanzaa in the US.
Creative Hawkes Bay’s website advises: Te Rangi Huata has 20 years indigenous arts management experience in Asia, Australia, and North America.” He clearly witnessed first-hand how successful Kwanzaa proved in building a shared racial consciousness in Black Americans and identified the opportunity to do much the same thing here.
Kwanzaa was invented by Ron Karenga (aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga) in 1966. He branded it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what he considered the Christmas-season exploitation of African Americans.
According to the official Kwanzaa Web site — as opposed, say, to the Hallmark Cards Kwanzaa site — the celebration was designed to foster “conditions that would enhance the revolutionary social change for the masses of Black Americans” and provide a “reassessment, reclaiming, recommitment, remembrance, retrieval, resumption, resurrection and rejuvenation of those principles (Way of Life) utilised by Black Americans’ ancestors.”
Karenga postulated seven principles: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity and faith, each of which gets its day during Kwanzaa week. He and his votaries also crafted a flag of black nationalism and a pledge: “We pledge allegiance to the red, black, and green, our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle, and to the land we must obtain; one nation of black people, with one God of us all, totally united in the struggle, for black love, black freedom, and black self-determination.”
Kwanzaa’s overt promotion of collectivism, identity politics, and group “struggle” is straight out of the Marxist-Leninist National Question playbook, same as modern-day Matariki celebrations in New Zealand.
Tony Snow, a columnist for the Detroit News, said this of Kwanzaa:
“Nobody ever ennobled a people with a lie or restored stolen dignity through fraud. Kwanzaa is the ultimate chump holiday — Jim Crow with a false and festive wardrobe. It praises practices – ‘cooperative economics, and collective work and responsibility’ — that have succeeded nowhere on earth and would mire American blacks in endless backwardness.
“Our treatment of Kwanzaa provides a revealing sign of how far we have yet to travel on the road to reconciliation. The white establishment has thrown in with it, not just to cash in on the business, but to patronise black activists and shut them up.”
To paraphrase that second paragraph, we might say: “Our treatment of Matariki provides a revealing sign of how … The white establishment has thrown in with it, not just for that warm glow which comes from being ‘culturally sensitive,’ but to patronise Maori activists and shut them up.”
Meanwhile, the Marxist-Leninist agenda of polarising groups in order to create racial/cultural conflict chugs quietly on.
Dumb wordy fool
I’m white but brainy enough not to be scared of other cultures or be such a simpering neurotic I need to hate on others trying to progress NZ out of the depths of sad redneckism dressed up in deluded pseudo intellectual analysis. Using ‘Marxist-leninist’ is the parrot word that gives away your lack of any free thought.
I hear alt right whiners love sodomising each other
I als hear they like burning down their farms and blaming Maori whilst raping their own wives
And I hear most rednecks are rapists and pervs like their hero Trump
Indeed it seems the more strongly you like being white the more sexually weird you really are … least that is what I have seen on the news in the courts and amongst public ….and boy oh boy do you guys love to hate women
SAD
Go save a life parasites
Look at this dumb, illiterate son of a bitch.
West-hating socialist traitor would about sum you up.
Read on, you will see yourself in there/
GUILT-TRIPPERS
The Western world is plagued by a raft of post-colonial-guilt-tripping white liberals who reflexively rat out their own race and culture for the warm glow that comes from lining up with supposedly “oppressed” peoples.
Let’s just call them “Ethno-Masochists.”
In America they refer to them as “Wiggers.”
Like all Western countries, New Zealand has a raft of these self-despising, West-hating socialist traitors– both in our universities and amongst the tertiary-educated — who have been helped by their Communist lecturers to see that whites are to blame for all the evils of the world.
These are people who told us three decades ago that apartheid was a social and moral evil in South Africa. Now, they’re telling us that it’s a social and moral good in New Zealand. Whether apartheid is to be decried or endorsed is based entirely on the skin colour of its beneficiaries. Whites always deserve a good kicking.
Leftists despise their own culture. They’ve been schooled to hate Western civilisation and regard Western countries as racist, sexist, colonialist oppressors. They desperately want to see other cultures as somehow morally superior to our own.
They’re not. The Judeo-Christian culture that originated in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, then took root in Europe before being exported worldwide, is vastly superior to other cultures. Many non-whites have also benefited massively in adopting Western cultural norms and values. This fact is undeniable to anyone except a moron.
West-hating socialist traitors have learned that the highest status in our society goes to anyone who can claim to be a member of a Marxist-designated race, gender, class, or sexual preference-based “victim” group. This explains why so many Pakeha with a little touch of the tar brush are falling over themselves to assert a “Maori” identity.
Indigenous pretenders.
For those who can’t claim such membership, the next best thing is to be a totally supine, groveling and penitent member of a “victimiser” group — a rescuer. That’s why liberal guilt-trippers like Andrew Judd and Gareth Morgan seek moral preening opportunities for “saving” the [part-] Maori. And everyone else must be made to wear the hair shirt.
There is no reason for us to elevate Maori culture to an undeserved pre-eminence. By any objective standard, the sum total of its contribution to human felicity is an ugly, gesticulating, tongue-poking, eye-rolling, thigh-slapping war dance of limited curiosity value when deployed before a rugby match.
If anyone can show otherwise, let them step up to the plate.
Open challenge to all Treatyists: point to a single discovery or invention that has come out of Maori culture to the benefit of humankind.
I bet you can’t …
Still, feel free to “accentuate the primitive” over “elevating the civilised” if that’s what blows your hair back. Just keep your hand out of my pocket and don’t expect me to kiss your barely-brown backside on the way past to somewhere useful.
Do it in your own time and on your own dime, not on mine.
ENDS
Mind your own fuckin business and stay out chch freak
It’s a good thing
We want it
You can fuck off you clipboard nazi stirrer weasle
Get a life you fuckin little loser
Our university not yours Auckland sycophant fuck
Thank you for so splendidly modelling the hatred you condemn. Your every comment is a joy to behold. Do carry on!
Wow, you really do have a problem, Male white…… You are so full of hate and can’t even appear to speak rationally. Maybe people would listen to you if you didn’t sound so irrational but they are turned off by such vitriolic language.
Have a free definitions lesson race-traitor.
“RACISM”
Racism is often conflated by the ignorant with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice.
There is only one race. The human race. Much of what is commonly referred to as “racism” is actually ethnocentricism.
And the most disgustingly prejudiced, ethnocentric people in this country are part-Maori who have chosen to identify monoculturally as “Maori,” chopping whole branches out of their family trees in order to do so.
Those who believe in a single standard of citizenship, colourblind government, and the abolition of unearned privileges for part-Maori are the complete opposite of their ethnocentric opponents.
Racism is different beast altogether. It occurs where a group of prejudiced, ethnocentric individuals get together to colonise or create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else on the basis of group membership.
In a free society all citizens enjoy individual equality in citizenship. This is so whether some of a citizen’s ancestors arrived in a canoe in 1350, a sailing vessel in 1850, an ocean liner in 1950, or more recently by airliner. Even someone who put his hand up 30 seconds ago at a swearing-in ceremony is entitled to all the rights of citizenship. Prior arrival or ancestral longevity in the land is no basis for special privilege.
Group rights are anathema to a free society. They create two classes of citizenship where only one existed before. Group rights require the intervention of an activist government forcibly taking rights from one group to bestow upon another. As Richard Prebble reminds us: “One group’s positive discrimination is another group’s negative discrimination.”
In Preferential Policies: An International Perspective, Black American academic, Thomas Sowell records the downstream effect of government-sponsored identity politics. Touted as promoting inter-group harmony, Sowell found that wherever such policies had been tried, they invariably expanded over time in scale and scope, benefited already advantaged members of the preference group (those with the smarts to work the system), and led to increased rather than decreased inter-group polarisation. In many places they have brought about decades-long civil wars.
And of course any downstream proposal that the beneficiaries of state-sponsored identity politics revert to being treated the same as everyone else will make such groups squeal like stuck pigs. As Thomas Sowell reminds us: “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.’
I will leave it to readers to determine whether New Zealand is a racist country, and if so, in whose favour this racism operates.
ENDS
You will see yourself in there too.
I’m guessing second category.
Marxist-generated racial/cultural identity politics attracts three kinds of turds.
– A numerically small group of hard core Communists who derive a sense of superiority out of knowing they are manipulating the situation by dividing society into “oppressor” and “victim” groups. They want power and aim to get it via the divide-and-conquer principle.
– The liberal ‘Pinks’ whom Lenin once referred to as ‘useful idiots’ due to how readily they can be co-opted to serve Communist agendas. They want moral preening and public virtue-signaling opportunities. The Communists provide these by telling the useful idiots they can earn brownie [sic] points by crossing the floor and going in to bat for the “oppressed.” Since the highest status in our society goes to anyone who can claim membership of a Marxist-designated “victim” group, so much the better if one has a remote Maori ancestor and can switch sides altogether. One is now an ancestor-denier and an indigenous pretender. Outside one’s kin group, such an individual is actually a Pakeha with a little touch of the tar brush, not a “Maori.” This self-delusion needs to be pointed out loudly and often, not pandered to.
– The more “Maori” [part-] Maori who want utu for being brown in a white man’s world. Their agenda is to shove everyone else’s nose in the racial turd as payback. We are back under the house again aged four, boobing uncontrollably the first time we realised our appearance made us “Maori” without the option. As Commie race-monger, Frantz Fanon reminds us: “The native is an oppressed [sic] person whose constant dream is to become the persecutor.”
I’m guessing you are too ignorant and uneducated to know what a “Marxist-Leninist” is or what their agenda might be.
Have a free history and political science lesson.
Then ask yourself whether these grubby little socialists care more about [part-] Maori or about revolution?
THE NATURE AND ORIGINS OF IDENTITY POLITICS
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (“the UN Declaration”) is now cited in tandem with the misconstrued Treaty of Waitangi to support the endless expansion of group rights to New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent.
New Zealand’s adoption of the UN Declaration is not binding and lacks an enforcement mechanism. Nonetheless, this document is far from harmless. The Declaration’s lofty phrases on the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, to maintain their own languages and cultures, to protect their natural and cultural heritage, and manage their own affairs, has further emboldened the Maori Sovereignty movement.
In endorsing this edict of the Mother of World Socialism, the United Nations, the current National Government has buckled to its coalition partner, the Maori Party; further validating the Maori Party’s race-separatist agenda; and opening the door to Maori claims to New Zealand’s once publicly-owned foreshore and seabed.
All ideas have a pedigree, and if our universities and media were doing their job, the matters set out below would be far more widely known.
The ideological underpinning of both the UN Declaration and the Maori Sovereignty movement traces back to the early 20th Century writings of Communist revolutionaries Lenin and Stalin on a topic they called “The National Question.”
Around 1905, Lenin and Stalin noted that Tsarist Russia consisted not just of ethnic Russians, but upwards of 80 formerly tribal subject peoples, conquered by the Tsars over the preceding 500 years and forcibly Russified.
To expand the Bolshevik support base these peoples were promised: “the right to self-determination,” “the right to manage their own affairs,” and “the right to speak, read, write, use, and be taught in their own language.” It is this more than 100 year-old Communist cant that resurfaces in the UN Declaration and in the demands of “indigenous peoples” movements all over the world.
After World War I the multi-ethnic empires of Austro-Hungary and Tsarist Russia to which the National Question was first applied to stir up revolution were no more. Lenin and Stalin then directed the National Question towards undermining the hold of European nations over their colonial possessions.
Starting in the late 1920s and early 1930s, Communists all over the world were instructed to encourage the independence aspirations of minority groups and indigenous peoples so as to bring them into conflict with the status quo.
In promoting decolonisation, the Communists were looking to weaken capitalism economically by depriving the colonial powers of sources of cheap labour, raw materials, and markets for finished goods. Post-colonial power would go to the politically organised, meaning Communist-led and supported puppet governments were expected to bring newly independent states firmly into the Soviet orbit.
Following the creation of the UN in 1945, Communists on its various committees and workgroups began to drip-feed National Question ideology into the fabric of that organisation. By 1960, the UN General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This stated that all peoples have “a right to self-determination” and proclaimed that “colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end.”
Locally, the Communist Party of New Zealand (“CPNZ”) soon identified a minority strand of Maori opinion centred on the Tainui, Tuwharetoa and Tuhoe tribes that had never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. These groups had gone to war against the Crown in the mid-19th Century and been appropriately brought to heel. They’d been punished with land confiscations and nursed a sense of grievance because of this. Their impetus was towards reversion to tribalism, not engagement with the modern world.
The CPNZ ran in the 1935 General Election on a platform that included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the point of complete separation.” In the 1930s, the CPNZ had little success with this line. Maori were a predominately rural people and had little contact with Communists, mostly found in urban areas with universities and a substantial manufacturing base. This was soon to change.
Between 1945 – 1975, Maori underwent one of the most rapid urbanisations of any group of people, anywhere. This brought Maori flooding into the universities and trade unions, the CPNZ’s main recruiting grounds. Many who’d moved away from traditional tribal connections lost them. And if they didn’t, these were often loosened by distance.
Communist “entrepreneurs of ethnicity” could now peddle a message of collective “Maori” disadvantage to people whose primary socio-cultural affiliation before moving to town had been to a tribal kin group. They could also make a race issue out of the problems many Maori experienced in adjusting to urban life.
The Communists who’d begun colonising our universities in the 1930s to use them as political indoctrination factories had by the 1970s achieved critical mass in many departments, especially those specialising in the study of society. Their growing dominance on faculty hiring committees allowed them to systematically exclude anyone holding alternative views. It was now possible in many disciplines to go all the way from Undergraduate to PhD. level without having been lectured by a single Conservative or Libertarian professor.
Controlling the universities was based on the writings of Antonio Gramsci, one of the many disreputable Communists held up as intellectual icons by the academic Left. The theoretician of Italian Communism, Gramsci had been imprisoned by Mussolini in the 1920s. He’d used his jail time to think long and hard about why violent Communist revolutions hadn’t occurred in the advanced capitalist countries where Marx had predicted they would first occur.
Gramsci’s answer was that the capitalist ruling class controlled the West’s social discourse. Its stranglehold on intellectual life made it impossible for the “subordinate classes” (workers, women, ethnic minorities, and alternative sexualities) to discover the truth about their institutionalised oppression at the hands of capitalist society. Unless this situation could somehow be changed, these groups would never develop a revolutionary class consciousness.
Revolution must therefore first take place on the level of consciousness. Like throwing a stone into a pool, this would start with the formation of a body of Communist intellectuals who would take over the academy to use it as an indoctrination factory. As their students graduated and moved into opinion-shaping roles, the Communist world view would progressively achieve “Cultural Hegemony,” or control of the West’s social discourse.
Naturally, recruits from the “subordinate classes” were needed as a revolutionary spearhead to spread the good word. But the wider Communist goal was to capture the largest possible cohort from the “dominant classes” who could be induced by propaganda to switch sides. This would be achieved by teaching that Capitalist society can be divided into groups that oppress and groups that are oppressed.
Gramsci’s academic adherents helped their students to understand that the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology, were not neutral and impartial. They were instead instruments of race, gender and class oppression. And the only moral position for someone born into a Communist-designated oppressor group was that of totally supine and penitent victimiser, desperate to make it up to those whom they’d learned their group had historically victimised.
These views are now considered “mainstream” in the Western academy. Students were told they were learning “progressive” new ideas about race, gender and class, not Communism. They were programmed with all the principles of Communism without the label then flattered for their cleverness in accepting the programming. If you told them they were Marxists or Communists, they’d respond with a pitying smile, roll their eyes, and accuse you of “seeing Reds under the bed.”
US political columnist Joe Sobran uses the metaphor of a hive of bees, united by a kind of “group mind,” to describe the largely informal body of Leftist Groupthink to which these people belong. There’s no central direction as such, but the bees can sense an enemy, and know when to attack.
Sobran says: “To become a bee in this hive is to surrender, voluntarily and eagerly, your own personality: to submerge the self in a collectivity; to prefer the buzzing cliché of the group to individual thought and expression; to take satisfaction in belonging and conforming to a powerful mass while punishing others for failure to conform … The similarity to an insect colony – where the individual exists only functionally, being both indistinguishable from and interchangeable with its fellows – is not superficial, it is of the essence. To be an insect is to be relieved of the burden of having a soul of your own.”
Most of the Bees are “Pinks,” not “Reds.” A small hard core of Communists derives a sense of superiority from knowing that they are manipulating the situation. But the vast mass of the Hive’s inhabitants consists of the Left-leaning approval seekers whom Lenin once referred to as “useful idiots.” These are people who have adopted a value system that originated with Communists after being helped to see this as their badge of membership to “Club Virtue.”
Having internalised the readymade system of values upon which their “Club Virtue” membership depends, most university graduates over the last forty years display a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned. If you disagree with them you are racist, sexist, fascist, misogynistic, homophobic or just plain stupid. Since a label is not an argument, rational discourse with Lenin’s useful idiots is impossible.
After completing their studies, the Bees sallied forth into the media, education system, trade unions, legal profession, judiciary, central and local government, entertainment industry, churches and other institutions that shape society’s governing ideas. There they embarked, with little conscious awareness, upon their pre-programmed transformational project.
Over the last 40 years or so, these largely unwitting “agents of social change” have completely altered the way our society sees itself. And over time, the views and values of our existing society have been quietly supplanted by the views and values of the Leftist counterculture.
Our universities thus served as a transmission belt into wider society for a raft of Communist narratives, including that of Maori as an “oppressed” people. As a result, the political centre of gravity has moved steadily leftward over several generations.
A few short decades ago anyone peddling ethnic nationalism would have been regarded as dangerously deluded. Now, through the Communist tactic of “pressure from above” by the UN and “pressure from below” by ethnic nationalists and their useful idiot enablers within member states, the topic has been successfully mainstreamed.
The presumption that some groups are entitled on the basis of racial and/or cultural identity to separate, different, or superior rights because some of their ancestors happened to have been someplace first, now stands revealed for what it is. A long-running Communist subversion strategy designed to substitute divisive group rights for the individual equality in citizenship that guarantees national unity and a free society.
ENDS
Have a free social marketing lesson, race-traitor, and see what a perfect little intellectual [sic] dupe and glove puppet muppet you actually are.
HOW TO CORRUPT THE THINKING OF A NATION
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” — Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, 1881
“Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told – and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. “ — Michael Crichton, The Lost World
““It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticise must also be silenced …” — Friedrich Hayek
Capturing the Academy in order to use it as an indoctrination factory for the views and values of the political and lifestyle Left has allowed a relative handful of West-Hating Communist traitors to multiply their effectiveness many thousand-fold. This could be likened to dropping a stone into a pool and watching the ripples spread in ever-widening circles.
Society’s future opinion-shapers are fed a pre-determined set of views and values then told that all educated, enlightened people think this way. This readymade world view then become part of the warp and weft of our culture through the principles of mass marketing described below, which turn our universities into a transmission belt, and our public discourse into a giant propaganda machine, for ideas that were deliberately crafted and deployed to white-ant our existing society.
Though these ideas and associated value shifts appear to have arisen spontaneously from the culture, they in fact represent a totalitarian form of intellectual coercion. Our universities are no longer committed to free speech or open debate. Only Leftism is allowed, a trend that has become increasingly evident in the Western Academy over several decades. Universities are meant to be an open forum for all ideological viewpoints. Yet Leftism is not only dominant, but unchallenged.
Leftists loudly proclaim their commitment to “diversity,” but when it comes to the most important diversity of all, the diversity of ideas, they see no irony in deliberately excluding competing value systems. “Since all teaching is ideological,” they reason, “it may as well be our ideology that is being taught.”
Canadian author, Mark Steyn, warns of the consequences of this mind-set: “Universities are no longer institutions of inquiry but ‘safe spaces’ where delicate flowers of diversity of race, sex, orientation, ‘gender fluidity’ and everything else except diversity of thought have to be protected from exposure to any unsafe ideas.”
As Friedrich Hayek reminds us: “Collectivism means the end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.”
In the modern Western university, intolerance of opposing ideas is not only openly extolled, but held up as a virtue. In many tertiary disciplines, especially those specialising in the study of society, it is now possible to go all the way from undergraduate to PhD. level without having been exposed to a single conservative or libertarian professor.
As a simple illustration of this point, if you were known to hold conservative or libertarian views, outside of the hard sciences and practical professions, would you apply for a teaching position at any Western university? And if you did, do you think that you would be accepted?
This Leftist stranglehold on the Academy means that by default a whole spectrum of ideas doesn’t exist. Or if peripherally acknowledged, they are put up only as a straw man to be rubbished, with nobody able to robustly defend them at hand to do so.
Capturing students at a vulnerable point in their intellectual development and isolating them from competing information sources means that their core values can be readily reshaped in the desired direction. Appropriately programmed graduates then remain in the university system as wholesalers of the views and values that originated with their Marxist-Leninist professors, or after completing their degrees, go off to retail what they have been taught to the wider community.
To convince the retailers to sell enthusiastically, the wholesalers must ensure that their unwitting minions are firewalled as much as possible from the source of the ideas they have been conditioned to peddle. After all, Communism still has a bad name with most people, and nobody likes to feel that they are someone else’s glove puppet.
Ideas can be marketed in exactly the same way as any other product, but with a few added twists. The most powerful tool for marketing ideas is the persuasion theory developed by Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo in the early 1980s, and known to marketing experts as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (“ELM”).
Petty is currently Professor of Social Psychology at Ohio State University, while Cacioppo is Director of the Social Psychology Program at the University of Chicago, as well as the Director of its Centre for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience. High-powered credentials indeed!
Antonio Gramsci would have immediately understood the application of the theories developed by these men to his vision of “the long march through the institutions, until socialism and relativism are complete. “
The ELM proposes a dual process theory about how attitudes are formed and changed. It evaluates persuasion strategies based on where they might fall on a continuum between two information processing routes: central (high elaboration) and peripheral (low elaboration).
Central route processing is a high elaboration persuasion strategy requiring detailed intellectual scrutiny of the marketing message to determine its merits. A convincing argument is likely to result in attitude change even if it is at odds with the recipient’s original position. If the argument is seen as unconvincing, the message is likely to be rejected. For the message to be centrally processed, the recipient must have both the ability and motivation to do so.
As one might expect, central route attitude change is likely to prove strong, enduring, and very hard to turn around.
Peripheral-route processing is a low elaboration persuasion strategy best understood as a gut level or emotional response to the marketing message, with little or no intellectual consideration of an argument’s merits. Recipients rely instead on a message’s environmental characteristics: perceived source credibility or attractiveness, a slick presentation, a catchy sound bite, or a desire not to appear out of step with one’s fellows.
Low elaboration strategies are typically used when an argument is weak or lacks evidence, or where a high elaboration message is too complex for the target audience to process. The marketer provides recipients with a mental shortcut to the desired conclusion, meaning the message is accepted or rejected based on external cues supplied by the marketer, rather than conscious thought.
Peripheral route persuasion seldom results in strong or lasting attitude change unless subject to ongoing reinforcement by the marketer.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model when applied to the marketing of ideas intersects with another persuasion model known to marketers as “exaction pricing.” Exaction pricing is the price paid by the target market for not purchasing the product.
In marketing, say, baked beans, it would be very difficult to paint someone as a bad person for preferring one brand over another. But when it comes to marketing ideas, imposing exaction pricing is like shooting fish in a barrel. The socialist capture of the culture means anyone swimming against the tide in the prevailing leftist intellectual sewer can expect to be thoroughly demonised.
In the marketing of ideas, exaction pricing works not just on intellectuals who centrally process information, but on the great mass of people who peripherally process it. It threatens the core identity of its targets, forcing them to accept the programming or risk being labelled as bad and evil.
Excluding competing ideas from the West’s universities means that for society’s future opinion-shapers, central route processing occurs in an intellectual vacuum. The arguments presented have apparent merit because students are provided with no yardstick against which to compare them. This is reinforced by low elaboration processing based on the source credibility of lecturers who appear to know what they are talking about. Graduates are chained still further to received dogma by being told that only “correct” views and values will make them card-carrying members of the intellectual community.
Those who don’t go on to higher education are mostly too busy making a living to centrally process social and political questions, find the issues too complex to process, or both. They can be readily induced to adopt the views and values of the intellectual class via peripheral route persuasion based on perceived source credibility. The programming is then locked in by the same fear of being marginalised for not sharing group-approved attitudes that binds the intellectual class.
In social psychology, “pluralistic ignorance” describes a situation where a majority of group members privately reject a received norm, but wrongly assume it is widely held, and pretend conformity so as not to appear out of step with everyone else.
Most people, whatever their level of intelligence, want to hold “correct” beliefs and attitudes. Their overriding drive is to belong and conform. In order to do so, they will overwhelmingly internalise received dogma without applying intellectual scrutiny to it.
Hans Christian Andersen’s story of The Emperor’s New Clothes is a time-honoured warning against buying into group-think for social approval.
A vain Emperor who cares about nothing but appearances hires two swindlers who promise to make him the world’s finest suit of clothes cut from a cloth invisible to anyone who is stupid or unfit for his position.
After being provided with a workroom and large sums of money to buy materials, the fraudsters pretend to weave the fabric to make the suit. Invited to admire the cloth as it is being woven, the Emperor’s ministers can see nothing, but pretend to see looms full of beautiful fabric taking shape for fear of appearing unfit for their positions. On his own inspection visit, the Emperor does the same thing.
Finally the swindlers announce that the suit is finished. They pretend to dress the Emperor in it and he marches before his subjects at the head of a grand procession. Behind him, his courtiers pretend to be holding up the train of a non-existent cloak, so as not to be seen by others as unfit for their positions.
Not wanting to appear stupid, the townsfolk also play along with the pretence. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the charade, loudly blurts out that the Emperor has nothing on.
Soon, others take up the cry, until everyone is saying the same thing. The Emperor cringes, suspecting that the crowd is right, but continues to pretend otherwise because backing down would be to own up to his own stupidity.
ENDS
We really have to make a lot of noise to try and halt this Maorification in its tracks. It’s like a runaway train at the moment with no sign of halting. I’m going to give the Conservatives my Party vote. I sincerely hope they get enough to allow them several seats in Parliament as I feel sure they will do their best to bring this racism to an end.
I’ve just emailed Colin that five words on a billboard will get him into Parliament: BINDING REFERENDUM ON MAORI SEATS.
Nothing else will.
He’s been getting some dumb branding advice lately, so fingers crossed he acts on this.
I Feel Sorry For You Helen…You Are Free To Leave Aotearoa Back To Your Ancestral Land Where You May Squeak As Loudly As You Like…
Maori Order…!!!
My ancesters have been here for several generations so I consider this my home country as well as Scotland from where my long ago ancesters came. Also I would be amazed if you don’t also have ancesters from elsewhere, seeing all of us do. This country was built on the backs of Scottish and other settlers and is what it is today because of their extremely hard work. Conditions in the 1800’s were not only very difficult but downright dangerous. Do I ever hear an acknowledgement of this from people who are hung up on racial divisions?!!
Just imagine what a backward little backwater this country would most likely be if the settlers had never come. The natives at the time were too busy killing and eating each other, practising female infanticide, marauding around the country with their muskets and taking land and possessions off the weaker more peaceful tribes. That’s why many peaceful Chiefs were desperate to come under the umbrella of Queen Victoria. The radical racist ones today are doing their ancestors who fought for peace, a grave injustice. Racial equality under the law is the only way for this country to prosper.
Also, it is New Zealand, not Aotearoa!!. Always has been and always will be if I have anything to do with it.
“In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King. And he that does not know his own history is at the mercy of every lying windbag.” – outgoing Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, in his 1922 farewell address
New Zealand is increasingly being referred to in the public square as “Aotearoa” or “Aotearoa New Zealand.”
This fiction deserves to be mercilessly deconstructed.
The agenda of its promoters is to imply that a pre-existing Maori nation state was rudely subsumed by 19th Century white settler governments and must accordingly be reinstated as “co-equal” to our existing government that governs for all New Zealanders.
When the Treaty of Waitangi was entered into in 1840, New Zealand consisted of hundreds of dispersed and petty tribes, each in a constant state of war with one another, and lacking any concept of nationhood. Some 512 chiefs signed the Treaty, while a substantial minority refused to, meaning there were probably more than 600 of these individually insignificant groups.
Contrary to modern-day misrepresentation, the Treaty of Waitangi was not with a collective “Maori,” but with tribes. Under the legal doctrine of Privity of Contract, only the parties to an agreement are bound by it, or can claim its protection in the event of a breach. Accordingly, the Crown should never have entertained Treaty claims from tribes such at Tainui, Tuwharetoa, and Tuhoe, whose forefathers never signed it in the first place. Such claims can only be sustained by buying into the revisionist fiction that the Treaty had just two parties: Crown and Maori.
Assertions that a Maori nation state existed when the Treaty was signed rest upon formal recognition by England’s King William IV in 1836 of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the so-called “Confederation of United Tribes” and associated flag.
Any “official recognition” of pre-Treaty collective Maori control of New Zealand must be placed in its proper historical context, which ethnic nationalists conveniently omit to do.
The so-called “Maori Flag” (not the tino rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty flag created in the 1990s) was adopted by Northland chiefs in 1834 at the behest of British Resident James Busby, after a NZ-built ship owned by Europeans was impounded in Sydney for not flying the flag of a recognised nation state.
Busby presented the chiefs with a variety of designs. They eventually chose a flag modelled on that of the Church Missionary Society, with which they were well familiar. This was not a Maori initiative, but a Pakeha-brokered expedient to protect New Zealand’s pre-Treaty commerce.
Nor was the 1835 Declaration of Independence driven by the puny number of Maori chiefs who signed it. This “paper pellet to fire at the French” was fudged together by Busby to head off Colonial Office fears of an impending takeover by French adventurer, Baron De Thierry.
Initially carrying the signatures (or rather the thumbprints) of 35 Northland chiefs, the Declaration was ultimately signed by just 57 chiefs, all residing north of the Firth of Thames. Since these chiefs represented less than 10 percent of all the tribes of New Zealand, the Declaration can hardly be held up as evidence of a national consensus.
The arguments of Maori sovereignty activists are further undermined by the impotence of the handful of chiefs who signed the Declaration to act or even deliberate in concert.
Signatories had pledged “to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade.” Inter-tribal animosities meant this body never met nor passed a single law, despite their common undertaking to do so.
At the time of the signing of the Treaty, the North and South Islands had a variety of Maori names, the most popular being Te Ika-a-Māui and Te Waipounamu respectively. However, we must be clear that there was no pre-existing Maori name for what is now New Zealand, because as we have seen, there was no Maori nation state or national consensus to form one.
Had there been a Maori name for New Zealand, the missionaries who drafted both the Declaration and the Maori Treaty text (fluent Maori speakers all) would have known of and used it. Instead, they used the same transliteration of New Zealand (“Niu Tirani”) in both documents to get their point across.
Maori sovereignty activists, who regard the Treaty of Waitangi as written in concrete if it advances their agenda, have successfully smuggled Niu Tirani out of the public discourse, because its use in the Maori Treaty text underscores the total bankruptcy of their claim to nationhood. “Aotearoa” has been smuggled in as a substitute.
Aotearoa was originally an alternative pre-European Maori name for the North Island. As Muriel Newman notes in her recent article on the New Zealand Geographic Board’s proposed name changes to the North and South Islands, “The Board ruled out Aotearoa for the North Island on the basis that it has been popularised as the name for New Zealand.”
Popularised, indeed!
“Fabricated” is a far better word.
The underlying agenda of the race-hustlers pushing alternative Maori place names is to insinuate into the public mind, through as many channels as possible, their “One country, two peoples” mantra.
Constant repetition then creates the false impression of widespread popular acceptance of what is really nothing more than a propaganda claim.
We see here deployed Adolf Hitler’s Big Lie technique as outlined in Mein Kampf:
“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
“It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”
Hopefully right-thinking New Zealanders will now have the ammunition to rebut the grossly impudent lie foisted upon them by Maori sovereignty activists and their supine, guilt-tripping liberal enablers.
ENDS
Reuben, it is so refreshing, to put it mildly, to hear someone come out with the true facts for once. We are bombarded daily with a total reinvented version of our history which bears no resemblance to the facts.
To add to what you have said though, Reuben, the Treaty only brought the natives under the same laws as the rest of us (racial equality) but we were still ruled from NSW. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter signed on 16 November 1840 and enacted on 3 May 1841 separated us from NSW and we then ran our own affairs. For me 3 May should be our National Day because we became a country in our own right and it applied to everyone. It should be a day for celebration but strangely, it seems to be suppressed and many have never even heard of it. Why?
Excellent, John. Let’s hope he takes notice and acts on it. I totally agree with you.
John, someone on the 1Law4All blog suggested you send this article to Ian Wishart of Investigate Magazine. What do you think?
You are welcome to do so if you like. I know Ian, but a third party recommendation might count for more.
ok, will do. Do you have an email address for him? please email it to me if you do. Thanks 🙂
He was highly literate and learned and now he’s wise as well.
Must feel let down not to have foreseen this inevitable clash. That’s years of expensive professional development that should have been a pleasure, a growth environment to learn in and find his teaching style. Instead it is thwarted, he is set back.
David Round or John could have warned him this would happen. Did he discover them only after enrolling? I wonder why there wasn’t somebody to predict this unavoidable outcome for him before he set his course for teacher training? Nothing worse than being old before you are wise. Very decent of him to record the experience as a warning to others who will be in his place. They would be *lucky* to come by it and read it though.
“In my experience, attempts by authors to camouflage their partisan views as jargon, or to hide them behind research, are doomed to failure; their convictions always end up leaking into the text, thereby sowing suspicion and uncertainty among readers about the author’s true motives.”- Lynley Hood
It’s the sanction of the victims who keep that inner suspicion and uncertainty quiet within them, allowing Professor Bishop and his teachers to go on.
When I left NZ to teach overseas 12 years ago, I suspected from occasional on-section training college students’ remarks that uncritical treatyolatry and bi-culturalism were creeping in, but this account is just staggering.
I’d love to see a response from the relevant training institution, not because I greatly doubt the accuracy of the criticisms in this post, but because more context is always helpful and it’s interesting to find out how the instructors justify themselves. It would be especially useful to see what reliable evidence they have that their dogma produces better learning outcomes, and how they expect their approach to stop NZ’s slide down international educational rankings.
To be fair, my training college year more than 40 years ago was often a waste of time, and since then NZ education has sometimes been swept by fads driven more by faith and fervour than credible evidence.
Dave, I don’t have permission to name the institution, as my informant still hopes to teach in New Zealand one day.
In any case, he’s told me that he has a friend at another teacher training college that’s even worse than his.
I think you can assume the “accentuate the primitive” policy applies to every organ of state, and certainly to anything involving education.
I recently received this email saying that the primary teachers’ union is now under Maori control:
‘John,
‘This is “from a reliable source,” but the details are sparse.
‘NZEI – the Primary School Teachers’ Union – uses what
I understand is called an Electoral college type of voting
system at its AGM.
‘In other words, each branch gets a vote and each
branch elects their voting delegate before the AGM.
(Or the like.)
‘To form a branch, 120 teacher members are needed. “Unless it is a Maori branch. In that case only 15 members are required.
‘Just what constitutes a ‘Maori’ branch is moot.
‘That resulted in a disproportionate Maori voting bloc. It
seems that the browns took over the NZEI, which had
several million dollars in assets.
‘My informant was among those who resigned in protest/disgust.
‘If you have some requisite contacts, the details in that tale
might be worth following up.’
Anyone have a good contact in the NZEI?
Don’t work for the Government if you have a brain. They are amongst the worst of employers unless you don’t want to think or care.
And become brainwashed in the process!!
All cultures are NOT equal.
The most economically, socially and politically benighted places on earth are those which have rejected or never adopted Judeo-Christian cultural norms: the West’s former colonies whose corrupt Marxist dictators bought into Soviet agit-prop after WWII and turned their backs on the West; and the Islamic states, ruled by religious theocrats imbued with a crude amalgam of Islam and Marxism.
My Judeo-Christian culture came from Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, before having been adopted by White Europeans, who exported it all over the world.
It is an accrued intellectual and moral tradition dating back thousands of years, and is solely responsible for having lifted humans out of barbarism.
Non-white peoples have also benefited massively from having adopted its democratically elected limited government, rule of law, free markets, secure private property rights, and individual rights and freedoms.
Maori culture has contributed precisely nothing to the grand total of human felicity beyond an ugly, gesticulating, eye-rolling, thigh-slapping, tongue-poking war dance of limited novelty value when deployed before a rugby match.
If anyone can demonstrate otherwise let them step up to the plate.
As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, while the Maori language and culture may be a very great treasure to those who value them, to those who do not, they are not.
And in a free society, while people are at liberty, within the law, to self-define as they see fit, what they are not free to do is to demand other people’s money to furbish their pretensions.
The fact that New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent have been persuaded by “entrepreneurs of ethnicity” to adopt a monocultural identity that elevates one set of ancestors while trampling down another gives them no legitimate claim to MY wallet.
Yet this is what has been allowed to occur in New Zealand.
Treatyists and their white liberal enablers are filth on the face of my country!
That is so true, Reuben. I couldn’t have put it better myself. I find the fact that people are trying to shove everything ‘Maori’ down my throat is making me rebel at every turn. I switch off things Maori all the time and it bothers me because I used to like certain things especially their singing. As for the haka, my hackles rise every time I hear stomping and chanting and look up and lo and behold there is another spontaneous haka at something – often a non-Maori something. It is done at everything that opens and shuts these days. Absolutely awful!!
People with minds of their own can’t be ‘made’ to accept another person’s culture especially more or less at the expense of their own. It causes resentment. So, if people of Maori descent want to pursue their culture, no-one is stopping them or will stop them, but they mustn’t expect me to fund it or have to put up with it in my face at every turn.
Also I think it the height of rudeness to have a spiel in ‘Maori’ at some sort of function without even the politeness after it of telling us in English what was said. These sorts of things should be left for the Marae unless of course the function was for ‘Maori’.
Oh Helen, We Have Been Force Feed Your Christian Verbal Condescending False Racist Bullshit For 201 Year’s, Surely When Your Grand Children Bring Home There Maori Boy Or Girlfriend You May Want To Engage In Polite Conversation From Something That You May Have Found Frightfully Entreeging Instead Of Hatred And Disgust From One’s Owne Aloof Prejudices Of Blind Ignorance…
The Condescending Hypocritical Content Of Your Hate Speach Makes Me Rather Ill To The Point Of Stating “HOW DO YOU LIKE IT”!
At Least My People Don’t Beat And Whip Your Children Into Learning Te Reo Maori In The Present Day Education System As Your Forebears Did To Mine…
Force Fed Utter Blind Religious Misgivings Then Hide Behind The Cloth…
As For Raising The Heckles On Your Skin, The Haka Has Done Just What It Is Supposed To Do…
Frighten The Enemy…
This is typical of comments from Griever Maori:
1. Rude.
2. Illiterate.
3. Angry.
4. Ignorant.
The understandably anonymous writer does not mention two important facts:
a) It was none other than the Maori chiefs themselves who insisted that the colonial government educate Maori children in an all-English environment.
b) It was the worldwide norm until about the 1980s for children to be beaten for breaking school rules. Is there any evidence to suggest that Maori and non-Maori children received different degrees of punishment for the same degree of disobedience?
I don’t know what the writer intends to achieve by ranting like this.
All it does is confirm and contrast the backwardness of backward-looking Maori with the foresight of forward-looking Maori – such as the aforementioned visionary chiefs.
You Dear Sir Are Welcome To Piss Off Also To A Country That Shares Your Decapitate Point Of View Mr “My Country” What A Joke Rubie Biggot…!!!
I note your email address is honkyracistkiller@gmail.co.
Thank you for confirming our concerns.
One has to love these braindead illiterates and the highly irrational manner in which they attempt to engage. A monkey hitting random keys could theoretically, given time, type the works of Shakespeare.
Somehow, I don’t hink you’d ever quite manage it.
Maori have the same access to the New Zealand education system as non-Maori.
Indeed, Bishop Bennett was honest enough to say that, if anything, access was weighted in their favour.
And yet illiteracy, illogicality, ignorance and rudeness remain endemic.
Of these deficits, the worst is the chronic inability to think – a condition that extends to the very top of Griever Maori society.
Dude..Are you on drugs?? either that or you have a serious mental disorder! get it sorted…start with a happy pill.
Time too Honour Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent
OUR ‘TRUE’ FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND ‘FIRST’ CONSTITUTION
The Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document to give part-Maori privilege and advantage over those who cannot claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry when the Treaty only gave Maori, “the same rights as the people of England”. The Treaty of Waitangi was the most generous gift to a primitive people on their way to self-destruction that was ever given by a super power. After Lt. Governor Hobson had declared Sovereignty over New Zealand on the 21st May 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose and was put into storage where it was later damaged by fire and rats.
By 1831 intertribal fighting had devastated the “tangata Maori” population and 13 Ngapuhi chiefs asked King William IV to be their guardian and protector, but it was soon found this could only be successfully achieved by Britain obtaining sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and “tangata-Maori” becoming British Subjects.
During 1840, starting on the 6th February the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between 512 “tangata Maori chiefs” and Queen Victoria where the chiefs gave up their territories and governments to legally allow British Sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency and laws of New South Wales. This arrangement only lasted for 12 months before New Zealand separated from New South Wales by Royal Charter and became a British Colony
With British Sovereignty firmly asserted, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 ratified that Sovereignty had been legally and morally obtained by Great Britain over all the Islands of New Zealand. This was recognised and has been accepted by the rest of the world ever since.
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent with its Royal Seal attached separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 16th November 1840 and New Zealand became a British Colony with a Governor and a Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, all under the watchful eye of Great Britain. Lt. Governor Hobson was sworn in as our first Governor on the 3 May 1841 and the first sitting of the Legislative Council (Government) was held on the 24 May 1841.
If the Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document and not the Royal Charter/Letters Patent we will never solve our racial and social problems, the Treaty will continue to drive a wedge between the people of New Zealand.
The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between “tangata Maori” and Queen Victoria for Britain to gain sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution that set up our Political and Justice systems under one law for all.
In 1947, with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster that granted New Zealand complete autonomy in domestic as well as foreign affairs, we all became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
It is interesting to note that Te Papa and the Ministry of Justice Electoral and Constitutional Policy Unit do not hold copies or any information on the Royal Charter/Letters Patent. We asked Te Papa under the Official Information Act (OIA), “Does Te Papa have a copy of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter and if so, why is it not given its rightful place at Te Papa”? Claire McClintock, Senior Advisor, Office of the Chief Executive, Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand replied. “Te Papa does not have a copy of the Charter”.
We then asked the Ministry of Justice under the OIA, “Why is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent not mentioned or part of New Zealand’s Legal System”? Fiona Illingworth, Manager, Electoral and Constitutional Policy, Ministry of Justice replied, “Your request is refused under Section 18(g) of the OIA 1982 as the Ministry of Justice does not hold any information relating to your request”.
Unbelievable when it is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand and listed as, “ACGO 8341, 1A19, R21434434, Charter of 1840, Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony, 16 November 1840”.
Our governments and academics have completely ignored the Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.
There is no doubt the Government and some part-Maori do not want this document made pubic as it would show how the people of New Zealand have been misled by their Politicians and Governments since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal it created. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is our Founding Document and first Constitution as confirmed by the New Zealand Gazette Notices below.
Gazette Notices and Proclamations that made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony.
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 12] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 6, 1841 [ GRATIS.
DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF NEW ZEALAND, AND THE
APPOINTMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY, CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, RN
AS GOVERNOR IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE SAME.
THE CAPITAL.
By the latest accounts from Auckland we learn that the “James” had arrived from London bearing HIS EXCELLENCY’S Commission as Governor in Chief, in and over the Islands of New Zealand, and her Majesty’s Order in Council for their separation from New South Wales. His EXCELLENCY was pleased to appoint Monday last for Proclaiming the same, and shortly afterwards a Levee was to have been held. In the Evening HIS EXCELLENCY was to have given a grand Dinner at Government House, to which all the elite of Auckland and the surrounding country have received invitations.
KORORAREKA.
Early in the morning of Monday last, the day appointed for Proclaiming HIS EXCELLENCY as Governor in Chief, &c., we were proud to observe the ships in the Harbour decorated with numerous flags. At noon they fired a Salute in honor of the occasion. The Union Jack floated
in front of the stores of Messrs Henry Thompson and Co., over the premises of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, and also at the Flag Staff Hill.
THE ILLUMINATIONS.
It is impossible for us in our limited space to describe the demonstrations of joy the inhabitants manifested in the evening on the happy occasion. Illuminations – fire-works – burning of tar barrels – firing of muskets and pistols from the hills and all parts of the Town – the parading of a band of music through the streets – the rejoicing of the Mauries – their war and other dances – all tended to make it one of the happiest possible. Among the best illuminated premises we noticed the Russell Hotel, which was very brilliant, as were those of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, on the Beach Mr. Dunn’s Inn, York street, Wood’s Hotel, the Gazette Printing Office, Captain Clayton’s new house, Mr Fenton’s &c., &c. The night was remarkably clear – the reflections of the red blaze from the Town mingling with the softened light from the “young May moon” falling upon the sparkling waters of the Bay produced a charming effect. There could not be less than two hundred Mauries on the Beach during the evening. We regret that His Excellency had not witnessed the fervour of their rejoicing. Several of the men carried muskets and powder flasks – many Maurie boys carried small flags on handsomely carved
batteaus(?) – and the females, also, vied with their partners in their manifestations of delight. The entire proceedings happily passed over without the slightest accident.
A party of Gentlemen were entertained at dinner by Henry Thompson, Esq., at his residence, Kororareka, – for the particulars of which we are indebted to a gentleman who was present. Although the party consisted of Mr. Thompson’s own friends, yet it was purely a public dinner, and was given by him in honor of His Excellency’s Appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand. The guests were – Captain Beckham, our Police Magistrate, Robert Fitzgerald, Esq., the newly appointed Police Magistrate, Frederick Whittaker, Esq., Captain Anwyl, John Scott Esq., W. S. Graham Esq., Captain Peil, Alexander Kennedy, Esq., Eugene Cafler, Esq., Daniel Pollen Esq., M.D. and John Hoggard Esq. Mr Thompson acted as Chairman, and Mr Grahame as vice Chairman. The cloth having been removed the usual toasts of – The Queen and the infant Princess – Prince Albert and the Royal Family – and the Army and Navy – were proposed and drank with all the honors. John Scott Esq., replied to the last toast on behalf of the Army with all the enthusiasm which should belong to every British Officer, and which he strongly felt at the announcement of the toast, as it recalled to his recollection those happy days of his life when he had the honor of belonging to that glorious establishment. The Chairman now called for bumpers – rose to propose the Toast of the Day and spoke as follows: Gentlemen, – we have assembled here this day for the purpose of celebrating an event of the highest importance in our admired land. At noon of this day His Excellency the Governor
proclaimed New Zealand a distinct and independent Colony – an event which will live long in our memories, and will form the subject of conversation of many a future and happy hour. But, gentlemen, we have met here more particularly for the purpose of doing honor to His Excellency Captain Hobson, on his appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand – a measure, which has produced in my breast, and which I am certain, will be responded to by every heart present – but one feeling, namely, that of unmingled delight. Had there been time since our arrival here, which was only yesterday, to have called a public dinner, it certainly would have been done, and even yet if one is got up, I have no doubt all present will be happy to attend. But it seemed to me that our rejoicings at Kororareka should be simultaneous with those at Auckland. Accordingly, Gentlemen, I avail myself of the pleasure of your company on this day, to what may be termed a private public dinner. Gentlemen, – His Excellency, previous to his arrival in this Colony, had already earned for himself a name, which guaranteed its descent into posterity. It was his good fortune to distinguish himself in an elevated position in the service of his Country. He belongs, Gentlemen, to the most glorious Establishment – to the
most formidable armada that ever graced and terrified the world. His Excellency has now, however, entered on an entirely different sphere, and there can be no doubt that the same energy – the same judgment, and the same ability that qualified him so well for Naval Command will fit him for the high office to which it has pleased Her Majesty to appoint him. To
Captain Hobson’s amiability, to his love of justice, to his strict regard for economy, and to his sterling integrity. I can bear witness; and that he may be an excellent Governor, it is only necessary that he should have around him good and faithful Councillors – men of informed and independent minds –
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 13] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 13, 1841 [ GRATIS.
PROCLAMATION
BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES.
WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the Sixteenth Day of November, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty, to erect the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND into a SEPARATE TERRITORY by the Name of HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND: Now, therefore I THE GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF, by COMMISION under the GREAT SEAL appointed, do hereby Notify and Proclaim that under Her Majesty’s said LETTERS PATENT the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND are henceforth to be designated and known as HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND and its DEPENDENCIES. And I do hereby further Notify and Proclaim, that Her Majesty has been pleased to direct that the Three Principal Islands of NEW ZEALAND hereafter or commonly Called – “THE NORTHERN ISLAND,” “THE MIDDLE ISLAND,” AND STEWART’S ISLAND” shall henceforth be designated and known respectively as “NEW ULSTER,” “NEW MUNSTER” AND “NEW LEINSTER,” of which all Her Majesty’s Subjects are hereby required to take Notice. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL AT GOVERNMENT-HOUSE, AUCKLAND, THIS 3RD DAY OF MAY, IN THE FOURTH YEAR OF HER MAJESTY’S REIGN, AND IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE.
By His Excellency’s Command, (SIGNED)
WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND. W. HOBSON, GOVERNOR.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
PROCLAMATION.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. &c., &c., &c,
WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been graciously pleased, by Commission under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the sixteenth day of November, in the Year of our Lord 1840, to constitute and Appoint me, WILLIAM HOBSON, ESQUIRE, CAPTAIN IN HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL NAVY, to be GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF in and over Her Majesty’s Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies.
NOW THEREFORE I the GOVERNOR and COMMANDER –IN-CHIEF aforesaid, do hereby Proclaim and Declare that I have this day have taken the prescribed Oaths and assumed the Administration of the Government accordingly. And I do hereby further Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty Has been pleased to appoint an EXECUTIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony, and to nominate and appoint the undermentioned Persons to be Members thereof, – That is to say:-
THE COLONIAL TREASURER OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING
And I do hereby Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty has been further pleased to Appoint a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, – and to Appoint and Direct that such Legislative Council shall be formed and shall consist of the following Members:-
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR FOR THE TIME BEING
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY FOR THE TIME BEING
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TIME BEING
THE COLONIAL TREASURER for the time being, AND
THE THREE SENIOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, nominated as such in any Commission of the Peace to be issued by me, the said GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER- IN-CHIEF, or by the Governor or Acting-Governor for the time being. The GOVERNOR, fully impressed with the magnitude and importance of the duties thus confided to him, is supported by the hope that Almighty God will bless his best efforts to give full effect to these Her Majesty’s most gracious measures for the establishment of Peace and Order in this important Colony; and he relies with confidence on the loyalty of the Colonists, and on their hearty cooperation with the Government in cultivating those feelings of mutual good will which alone can insure to them the future benefit of Her Majesty’s solicitude for their welfare and prosperity.
The GOVERNOR avails himself of this occasion to appeal to the good feelings of the Colonists generally in favour of their fellow subjects of the NATIVE RACE, who require only instruction and good example to become equal to Europeans in moral, as they are already in physical attainments, and to point out to all who really have the true interests of the Country at heart, the propriety of conciliating their affection by making every charitable allowance for their defects, and by conducting all intercourse with them in a spirit of justice and forbearance. The GOVERNOR trusts that he will be afforded the satisfaction of hereafter knowing, that His endeavours for the accomplishment of Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views have not been employed in vain.
Given under my Hand and Seal at Government House, Auckland, this 3rd day of May, in the Fourth Year of Her Majesty’s Reign, and in the year of our Lord one Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-one.
(signed)
WILLIAM HOBSON,
GOVERNOR.
Colonial Secretary’s Office, Auckland, 3d May 1841
HIS EXCELLENCY, THE GOVERNOR has been pleased to Appoint the undermentioned Gentlemen to the MAGISTRATES of the Territory of New Zealand, viz.:
Beckham, Thomas Hanson, R. Davis Bunbury, Thomas Hunter, George Clarke, George Johnson, John Coates, James Mair, Gilbert Wakefield, William Cooper, George McDonogh, Arthur Edward Symonds, William Cornwallis, Dawson, Gilbert Francis Martin, S., M.D. Clendon, James Reddie Fisher, Francis Mathew, Felton Fitzgerald, Robert A. Murphy, Michael Godfrey, Edward Lee Powditch, William Halswell, Edward Store Richmond, Mathew
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 17] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, June 24, 1841 [ GRATIS.
First Sitting Of THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, according to notice, opened the first Session of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, on the 24th May alt.
Honorable. W.SHORTLAND, Colonial Secretary,
Honorable FRANCIS FISHER, Attorney General,
Honorable GEORGE COOPER, Colonial Treasurer,
E.S.HALSWELL, Esq., one of three Senior Justices,
Being present received the Oaths and took their Seats in the Legislative Council accordingly.
JAMES COATS, Esq., was appointed Clerk of the Council, and took the Oaths of Office.
HIS EXCELLENCY then delivered the following SPEECH :-
I have availed myself of this early period to assemble the Members of the Legislative Council for the purpose of bringing under consideration, certain measures, which the altered circumstances of the Colony seem to me urgently to require. At this our first Meeting, I deem it proper to draw your attention, not only to the Royal Charter, but to the highly important Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual, which accompany it. The Charter as you are already aware, erects the Islands of New Zealand, and certain Dependencies, into a separate Colony, under the Superintendence of a Governor and Commander-in-Chief. It constitutes a Legislative Council, who are empowered to enact Laws and Ordinances for the Local Government of the Colony. It authorises the establishment of Courts of Justice, and the issue of Commissions of the Peace—and, in fact brings into complete operation, British Laws, throughout the whole Colony of New Zealand.
The Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual more particularly define the functions of the Governor and Council, and in a clear, perspicuous manner point out the duties of each. In order that you, Gentlemen, may have an opportunity of acquainting yourselves with those particular duties, I have directed the Instructions to be laid on the table, and kept open for your perusal in the Council Chamber.
I regret that I cannot at the present Meeting, lay before you the estimates of the following year, which, although in a forward state of preparation, are incomplete, owing to the non-arrival of the directions from the Lords of the Treasury, of which I am advised, and which may be daily expected.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, continues: GENTLEMEN, –I shall lay before you an Ordinance for the present re-adoption of all such Acts of New South Wales as were in force previous to our separation, and are now applicable to this Colony. It is not my intention, however, eventually to propose for your adoption, the Laws of New South Wales, but it will be my endeavour, during the recess, aided by the advice and assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, to prepare for your consideration, such Laws as will best provide for the Administration of Justice, and the contingencies of social life, which may be expected to arise in New Zealand, therefore the measures now proposed to you, must be deemed temporary, and contingent as resulting from the present peculiar condition of the Colony. By command of Her Majesty I will bring under your consideration, the Repeal of the Land Commission Act, and submit for your adoption, an Ordinance for the same general purposes, but granting to the Governor of New Zealand, the same powers as those heretofore enjoyed by the Governor of New South Wales. I will likewise lay before you, Bills for the Regulation and Collection of the Revenue of Her Majesty’s Customs, for establishing Courts of Quarter Sessions and Requests, and for the prohibition of Distillation. – These, Gentlemen, are the only subjects for the present, on which I shall require you to deliberate.
GENTLEMEN, –We have a solemn and important duty to perform: by our means conflicting interests are to be reconciled; Harmony and Tranquility established, and measures are to be adopted for improving and elevating the character of the Aboriginal Inhabitants. In this salutary work, I confidently look for your cordial assistance and cooperation, and I trust under Devine Providence, we shall be enabled to accomplish these important objects, and give effect to Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views for the welfare, prosperity, and Civilization of this Colony.
After laying on the Table the Indemnity Bill, THE GOVERNOR adjourned the Council until
Thursday, 27th May 1841.
CONCLUSION by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
Any breach against the Crown can only be a breach against the laws of New Zealand and not the Treaty of Waitangi or the Waitangi Tribunal, where only those with a minute trace of Maori ancestry can lay a claim or participate. All alleged claims against the Crown since 1975 should have been heard by our Justice System where all New Zealand citizens could have participated as they were in the 1930’s and 1940”s when most of the recent claims were “fully and finally” settled. They should not have been heard by the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal or the Crown that allows our history and the Treaty of Waitangi to be continually distorted to allow these claims to proceed. The Treaty of Waitangi or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent gave no exclusive rights for Maori; we were all given the same rights under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed!
The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Queen Victoria and “tangata Maori”.
The Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution.
The People must speak out as our Politicians and Governments have misled us since 1975.
New Zealand Independence Day must be celabrated on the 3 May each and every year.
For further information: http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz (Royal Charter).
Support the One New Zealand Foundation Inc by becoming a member. Donations gratefully accepted.
Compiled by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 28/6/14 (c)
I am currently undergoing a nursing degree at CPIT in Christchurch. I hold the same opinion of the content that is taught relating to cultural safety towards Maori and the Treaty – I think alot of it is really odd and is creating a bigger divide between Maori and non Maori. It was the same in high school in the 1990s – pandering to Maori students. My Pakeha classmates would comment on the preferential treatment – they were aware. Yet by the end of the seventh form, the number of Maori left was dismal – less than 10 in my group of over 90 students. Funny how Maori high school academic performance is worse than Pacific Islanders in NZ in 2013. Those stats are on the ministry of education somewhere. But let’s blame colonisation – it’s why maori children go to school hungry and are under performing. And high unemployment. And live in poverty. Blame colonisation. It’s a cop out.
The “Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840, but New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have been persuaded by “entrepreneurs of ethnicity
to adopt a monocultural identity that elevates one set of ancestors while trampling down another. Yet traditional Maori culture says that one is to honour all ancestors equally.
For many decades now, there has been no discrete or separate “Maori” ethnic group. All so-called “Maori” alive today are of mixed European-Maori descent. It would be virtually impossible to find a “Maori” who doesn’t possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised.
To illustrate this point, prior to the passage of the Electoral Amendment Act 1975, the legal definition of “Maori” for electoral purposes was “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand or a half-caste descendent thereof.” After panicked complaints from its Maori MPs that soon nobody would be eligible for the Maori Roll, the then-Labour Government changed this to read “or any descendent of such a person.”
Under current electoral law, New Zealanders with Maori ancestry can determine once every electoral cycle if they wish to be on the Maori Roll or the General Roll. We thus have a legal definition of “Maori” that defies definition in the Courts, since it is entirely based on an individual’s periodic decision to identify as “Maori.”
Writing in 1972, historian Joan Metge offers a compelling explanation as to why a subset of New Zealanders today might continue see themselves as “Maori.” She states: “New Zealanders, both Maori and Pakeha, tend to identify others as ‘Maori’ if they ‘look Maori,’ that is if they have brown skin and Polynesian features. Those whose Maori ancestry is not so evident in their appearance are left to make their own choice.”
Since the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in a person’s appearance, many who are considerably less than half-Maori are likely to be identified by others as “Maori” whether they like it or not. This psychic wound is often compensated for by aggressively embracing a collectivist “Maori” identity and seeking utu from the majority culture these people feel shut out of.
The psychological roots of Treatyism may well amount to little more than the hurt child looking for someone to punish. The rest of us should not be obliged to validate someone else’s adjustment issues. There is no logical reason for public policy to support the notion that anyone who is less than half-Maori should be regarded as “Maori,” or to dignify their cultural pretensions, particularly with other people’s money.
i visited you site just now. read the article about the trainee teacher. it was disgusting. both of you wrote garbage, verging on hate speech.
here is a list of words you used to describe maori aspirations to have their language and customs valued and taught in nz schools:
brainwashing, propaganda, primitive, pagan, inquisitional, sinister, totalitarian, woofterism, grotesque, communist, rage, savages, barbarity.
why do you have to spit venom whenever you talk about my culture? why the doom and gloom language?
you say….
“How is it that in a civilised country where
violence is “not OK”, it is OK to stage contests forcing boys to rage like savages in the name of “culture”?”
can you speak fluent maori? are you qualified enough in maori haka to know what the actions, words, tempo, rhythms and type of haka mean? no, you are not. that’s plain to see when you describe it as savage rage. thats not even close to the truth. if you understood the content and meaning of particular haka, you’d have never made that comment, ever. how can you label something savage, when you don’t understand the lyrics and actions? you can’t.
you also say,
“Of course much of te reo Maoriis simply Maorified English.”
that too is absolute garbage. again i ask you, can you speak maori? can you read and write maori? what qualifies you to comment on a language that you can’t even understand? that’s ridiculous. you have shown it’s YOUR ignorance at fault here, not maori language, customs and traditions.
i’m glad your teacher trainee left the country. we don’t need losers like that here in new zealand.
kiaora
Adam, I’m simply pointing out how things like the haka and powhiri come across to those who are not Maori.
Have you ever stopped to think about that?
There are a lot of violent things I don’t like, including Pakeha pastimes like killing fish and animals for fun. Savage is savage and cruel is cruel and intimidation is intimidation and childish is childish.
I happen to think grown men behaving boorishly and trying to intimidate people in the 21st century is childish, and I don’t see why even children – perhaps especially children, especially non-Maori children – should be forced to do it.
Perhaps you could tell us why you think they should?
I imagine, if Adam had replied, he would have told you that he’s already given you that answer.
Haka don’t exist just for intimidation, or just for savagery. That’s clearly something you don’t understand, or choose to misunderstand.
Protecting the Maori language should be up to the people of Maori descent – not the Government. They don’t protect other languages like Gaelic etc. Many don’t want the Maori language foisted upon them and certainly don’t want to see or hear it at every turn. I don’t want, or have any intention of learning the Maori language but I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who does. Just don’t expect me to have to put up with it or pay for it.
Well this is quite an interesting form of reasoning. If a significant percentage of students and / or parents want publicly funded students to learn a particular language (Maori, Japanese, French, etc.) the government under our system generally feels obligated to pay for it. If you have a problem with that you’re in a very slim minority. A wide range of academics absolutely need linguists to study the languages indigenous to this region. If you don’t want the government to fund them then why should it fund any other specialists other academics require? Second-language fluency is a requirement of many publicly funded humanities and social sciences graduate programmes and why wouldn’t Maori be a common choice amongst those dealing with NZ topics? Your contention that the government shouldn’t fund anything that may ‘protect’ Te Reo Maori could only possibly hold validity if you present a coherent argument that the private sector, and not government, should fund education.
However haka and powhiri are intended to be received, what matters is how they are received.
If they are received by people as boorish, barbaric, childish and insulting, then it is bad manners to inflict them on those people, and bad manners to insist on the right to do so regardless of what those people think.
It must be pointed out loudly and often that Maori language classes are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the Maori Sovereignty movement. Their purpose is to indoctrinate young, impressionable minds with the racist “One country, two peoples” mantra of the biculturalists.
Children are even being taught that so-called “Maori” are “special” and should be accorded a superior status because some of their ancestors arrived in New Zealand before everyone else did.
The reality is that we have a Maori race in name only, with racial mixing giving the lie to the existence of a unique race called Maori. Imported bloodlines have diluted the original Maori race to such an extent that it now exists only as a cultural concept. Denying one’s mixed ancestry and adopting a monocultural identity doesn’t make it go away.
Calls for Maori language to become a compulsory school subject are nonsense when all the evidence shows that learning Maori is not a high priority for most non-Maori New Zealanders. A recent New Zealand Herald headline reads, “Few non-Maori pick [Maori] language for study at secondary schools.” The accompanying article noted that: “New figures supplied to the Herald show that 4% of the non-Maori student population in Year 9 or above learned Te Reo last year.”
That 4% provides a strong indication of the lack of support among the New Zealand public for compulsory Maori lessons in schools. The Treaty of Waitangi does not obligate non-Maori to promote the Maori language, but it did give today’s part-Maori the right to preserve it if they chose to do so.
To justify calls for the taxpayer-funded preservation of Maori language and culture, the self-interested, ill-informed, and brainwashed have misdirected the New Zealand public towards “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” and “the Treaty is a ‘living document” as though its simple black letter clauses mean something other than what those who signed it 1840 had in mind at the time.
Article II guarantees to Maori signatories “… the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties …“ In the Maori language Treaty document the word “properties” becomes “taonga.” Today that word has come to mean treasures, both tangible and intangible, including language and culture.
This blatant try-on would have astonished Sir Apirana Ngata. In his 1922 explanation of the Treaty, Ngata described “taonga” as applying to “this canoe, that taiaha, that kumara pit, that cultivation.” Not once did he hint that taonga included intangibles as claimed today by today’s race-hustlers and their liberal enablers.
Ngata was well-fluent in the Maori language and his explanation was consistent with Kendall and Lee’s 1820 vocabulary, the Williams 1844 dictionary, and Frederick Maning’s personal account of pre-Treaty New Zealand. Had anyone bothered to check these texts, they would have learnt that “taonga” meant goods, property, things, chattels, or in legal terms “personalty” [personal property].
F.E.(Frederick) Maning settled in Northland in 1833. He fathered four children to the sister of a Maori chief and later became a Judge of the Native Land Court. In his book Old New Zealand, Maning translates “taonga” as “Goods; property.”
Some years ago, researcher, Dennis Hampton, wrote to Auckland University’s Professor Andrew Sharp about this matter. In his book Justice and the Maori, Professor Sharp had observed that in 1840 the Maori language “was clearly not under threat, so how could it have been in anyone’s mind as a thing needing protection?” He expressed even greater doubt about ‘Maori cultural values.’
Replying to Mr Hampton, Professor Sharp said “[E]ven if taonga could mean things such as language and culture, it was not being used that way in 1840. I entirely agree with you that what was being thought of was property, and the kind of property that could be held exclusively.”
The point of entry into the public square for the taonga myth appears to have been former Waitangi Tribunal member, Sir Hugh Kawharu’s back-translation into English of the Maori Treaty text, in which “taonga” in Article II was deliberately misrepresented as meaning “treasures.”
What University of Canterbury law lecturer, David Round, refers to as a “portmanteau word” soon became a kete for anything Maori activists wanted to lay claim to in subsequent Waitangi Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal’s Kaituna River Report (1984) stated that “ratou taonga katoa” meant “all things highly prized.”
The Tribunal concluded in its Manukau Report (1985) that “Taonga” refers to more than physical objects of tangible value. “A river may be a taonga as a valuable resource. Its ‘mauri’ or ‘life-force’ is another taonga.”
Since the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 confers upon the Tribunal sole authority to determine the Treaty’s meaning and intent, it didn’t take long for word to get around. In 1987 Parliament passed the Maori Language Act. Its preamble stated: “Whereas in the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown confirmed and guaranteed to the Maori people, among other things, all their taonga: And whereas the Maori language is one such taonga:”
Over the years the taonga/intangibles myth made its way into a number of law reports. For example, in a 1994 case, NZ Maori Council v Attorney-General, it was stated that the Maori language is “a highly prized property or treasure (taonga) of Maori.”
The Tribunal expanded this myth-making to state that the Crown was obliged to protect the Maori way of life in its entirety – based on references to the non-existent “Article IV” of the Treaty that Treatyists have invented and increasingly try to thrust into the public square.
The source of this claim is a pre-Treaty korero that took place at Hokianga, where Bishop Pompallier had established a Roman Catholic mission. Primed by their spiritual advisers — who feared that the Church of England wanted them run off — Maori Catholics asked if the Crown, as incoming sovereign, could guarantee freedom of religion. Hobson replied that all religions, including “Maori customs,” would be protected.
Freedom of religion was of course captured in Article III of the Treaty, which accords individual Maori “all the rights and privileges of British subjects.”
The Tribunal starts out by reinterpreting the Treaty on the basis of prior discussions, rather than its black letter clauses. Re-writing the Treaty on the basis of discussions that took place before it was signed is analogous to construing an Act of Parliament on the basis of the Select Committee Report to the House and the Parliamentary Debates that took place before it was passed and ratified. Not to put too fine a construction on it: arrant nonsense.
Even if it was appropriate to reinterpret the Treaty in this way (which it is not), in drawing downstream conclusions about there being an obligation on the Crown to protect and foster the Maori language and culture, the claimant-biased Tribunal wilfully disconnected the Hokianga discussion from the context in which it occurred, so as to give it an unintended wider meaning that both Hobson and its Maori signatories would have regarded as a startling proposition indeed.
The Treaty of Waitangi is what its black letter clauses say that it is. Nor does it have an Article IV. There are no “principles” to be distilled out of it. To admit of this possibility is to open a Pandora’s box to anything Maori claimants might wish to demand, for as long as New Zealanders are prepared to accept European-Maori (with an ever-declining portion of Maori blood) asserting that they are “Maori” for unearned financial gain.
This nonsense has now spread to government departments and local authorities. The Ministry of Education, Statement of Intent, 2008 – 2013 asserts: “The Government recognises the Maori language as a taonga guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty of Waitangi.” In its sustainability policy, the Christchurch City Council talks of responsibilities “to take care of places, natural resources and other taonga (both tangible and intangible).”
Even Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia’s definition contains this tommyrot: “A taonga in Maori culture is a treasured thing, whether tangible or intangible. … Intangible examples may include language, spiritual beliefs and radio frequencies.” Those who compiled this entry have drawn heavily on Waitangi Tribunal reports.
Parliament needs to look beyond the pro-claimant bias of the Waitangi Tribunal and legislate for the Treaty of Waitangi to be interpreted on the basis of the meaning its 1840 signatories gave to its black letter words at the time.
We must also dispense with revisionist assertions that 19th Century white settler governments wiped out the Maori language as part of a policy of enforced assimilation.
In the 1870s, shortly after the Native Schools system was established, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools. A newly elected Maori Member of Parliament, Takamoana, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English.
Several petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require teachers in Native Schools to be ignorant of the Maori language and not permit the Maori language to be spoken at the school.
Some school committees advanced similar restrictions themselves. For example, the minutes of Waima School Committee show that as early as 1883 this school developed a policy forbidding both parents and children to speak in Maori. The minutes recorded that:
“[to] supplement the law forbidding the speaking of Maori in class, or in the school grounds in school hours, no person or parent can engage a child in speaking Maori, and in such cases, any child can inform on that person or parent to the Committee, who shall be empowered to fine that person or parent the sum of five shillings. If it is a matter of emergency or extreme importance, the child can be removed out of sight or hearing of other children before any communication takes place.”
These rules were generated and approved by the school committee, which was all Maori except for the teachers. Ironically, the minutes from which the above quote was taken were written in Maori. It was commonplace for such meetings to be held and recorded in Maori during this period.
By the first decades of the 20th Century, teachers had discovered they needed to do what actually worked in practice, and the Ministry of Education turned a blind eye to this in the interests of better outcomes for Maori children.
In the 1930s, my grandparents were a sole charge husband-wife teaching team in the Native Schools system. I once asked my grandmother if it was (as claimed by racial activists) ever official policy for Maori children be beaten for speaking Maori in the classroom or the schoolyard. “Not in our school,” I was told. “Our children were coming to school from a home environment in which Maori was the first language and English infrequently spoken. The only way to bring these children into the learning environment was for the older children to use Maori with the younger ones to help them learn English.”
Inspectors came around several times a year and frequently complimented my grandparents on their teaching methods. The push to eradicate the Maori language from the school environment came not from the wicked Pakeha, but from the Maori parents, who would buttonhole my grandparents at the school gate or out and about in the community with: “I hope you aren’t letting those kids of mine speak Maori at school. I want them to learn properly how to speak the English.”
Sensible parents, since Maori as originally spoken has no words for the technological or economic concepts needed to get ahead in the modern world.
It was Maori elders who asked for their children to learn English and for them to be punished for speaking Maori at school, so the latter-day suggestion that some kind of institutional racism was deployed to stamp out Maori language and culture — while politically useful — is factually vacuous.
Where children were actually punished for speaking Maori at school, it must be pointed out that until the early 1980s, all children were physically disciplined for any perceived misdemeanour, even for a spelling mistake. Nearly anyone I know over 50 remembers a teacher smacking them with a ruler, leather strap, or cane.
I’m with visiting AFS scholar, David Ausebel, who in 1962 wrote: “The future of the Maori language and culture lies not with the intervening European, but in the Maori home, and in the habits and usages of the Maori parents.”
The fact that succeeding generation of Maori parents chose (for very valid reasons) not to teach the Maori language to their children is no justification for today: [a] forcing me to pay for its revival; and [b] shoving my kids’ noses into a bucket of racial swill.
While the Maori language and culture may be a very great treasure to those who value it, to those who do not, it is not.
End of story, really.
Finally!! I totally agree with you Adam! This is utter garbage, the vile bilious whinings of a closet racist. I’m really proud of my country’s commitment to addressing the very real honorable Tiriti. These rats can gnaw and squeak all they like, it’s happening whether they like it or not! Chur bro.
I totally agree with both John and Reuben. For me, a non-Maori, learning the Maori language and having Maori protocols thrust upon me at every turn is a real turn-off – I actually view the haka with utter distaste when it is done spontaneously (or otherwise) at everything that opens and shuts, apart from before a rugby match.
I do not want to learn ‘things Maori’ but I have absolutely no problem with those who do but they should learn it in their own time and not have the education system compelled to teach it to everyone. It’s the same with my heritage. I do not expect the education system to teach it and anyone who wants to learn it can do so without hindrance but at their own expense and in their own time.
Everything in the education system should be taught in English but I do not have a problem with classes being available for other cultures (not just Maori) for those who want to learn them but certainly should not be compulsory for everyone.
Several decades after the Maori Holocaust the Americans had a Holocaust of their own, with each side employing Jeffersonian ideals for its purposes. Does that mean we dismiss every possible idea from America from that period and before as barbarically primitive? And if you think war-like Maori get pride of place try calling those who murdered hundreds of thousands of German civilians from the sky what they are.
As for the author’s criticisms about educational programmes ‘foisting’ wishful Maori perspectives on students, it goes well beyond anything to do with Maori themes, to a real suppression of originality and original research altogether, at least with some education lecturers. There are some serious third-rate academics masquerading as ‘lecturers’ in education departments in this country. Fortunately there are also some gems. It’s a shame that those who think that you become a good teacher by doing what they know rather than learning what you don’t know may be a majority at some institutions (I think I lucked out a bit with mine).
Stephen said: “Does that mean we dismiss every possible idea from America from that period and before as barbarically primitive?”
Of course not. Every idea must prove itself on its merits. Where did I suggest otherwise?
Stephen said: “And if you think war-like Maori get pride of place try calling those who murdered hundreds of thousands of German civilians from the sky what they are.”
Spoken like a true traitor. I assume you’re a socialist and hate the West.
You show not one shred of sympathy for the millions of victims of the Nazis.
You turn a blind eye to the hundreds of wars perpetrated by Maori upon Maori, the slaughter of the Moriori, the unprovoked atrocities in Poverty Bay and Taranaki against innocent settlers.
You ignore the fact that it was Maori who breached the Treaty and declared war on the Queen.
What did they expect?
What did the Germans and Japanese expect?
You feel only for the poor aggressors. You see no difference between brutes who start wars and victims who finish them. When some thug starts a fight, all bets are off. The only thing that counts is eliminating the threat to yourself, your family or your nation. The victims are entitled to strike back as hard as they damn well like.
That’s why I have no time for the treacherous lefties who rail against the US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How would they have ended World War II?
Stephen said: “it goes well beyond anything to do with Maori themes, to a real suppression of originality and original research altogether”.
I agree. Not sure if you mean it the way I take it though. 🙂
The bombing of German civilians was counterproductive to ending Nazi rule; bombing Hiroshima likely saved more lives than any other means of defeating the Japanese Empire. How does thinking or not thinking this make me a socialist? I’ve been to Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, and Seoul’s monument to comfort women to pay my respects. I also happen to think the Mieji Restoration increased life expectancy and autobahns were probably a good idea. Why on Earth do you need to look for labels instead of trying to think objectively about case validity?
Just like there are worthy principles we can derive from the American independence movement no matter what it ultimately led to there are worthy principles we can derive from other situations and cultures. And here’s the funny thing – they can be good principles no matter how contrived they are. I really don’t care if you want to call a particular learning strategy ako or reciprocal learning or learning together, if it actually works. And you know what, I don’t even care if Maori actually ever practiced any such thing if it actually works.
Stephen, if I was incorrect in labelling you a socialist, I apologise for that most heinous of insults. 🙂
Hating one’s own is the mark of a socialist, as is lack of logic, and you seemed to me to be demonstrating both.
Had you balanced your comment as you have now done, I would have balanced mine.
I agree about doing what works.
I agree about cherrypicking the best ideas the world has to offer. I have never said otherwise.
I do not agree with the forcing of a culture practised by fewer than 15% of New Zealanders, upon the other 85%.
I do not agree that that culture has merit simply because it exists.
I think the violent aspects of Maori culture have no merit, and should not be inflicted upon others.
I am quite happy to adopt aspects of Maori culture that can be shown to have merit, just as Maori have been happy to adopt aspects of Western culture that they think have merit.
Where possible, I think individuals should be free to do what they think has merit.
When a joint opinion is required on what has merit, in a democracy we obey the opinion of the majority of voters.
I believe the opinion of voters should be allowed to be heard more often, which is why I support binding referenda.
Your percentages are somewhat interesting, especially in an educational context. If those who identify most strongly with Maori culture make up 15% of the population (let’s at least pretend) then is it an imposition if their culture makes up 15% of a multicultural school’s life? And with the exception a student studying Te Reo Maori as an option at the secondary level, I have trouble seeing how a student could possibly reach such a percentage at a non-Maori school. How in such a context is it an ‘imposition’ to spend two minutes a week singing a waiata or five minutes a month watching a kapa haka or 15% of history class studying Maori history? And what if a lot of the other 85% (myself included) find this generally interesting, enjoyable, and worthwhile?
Stephen, if the kids are doing singing, then by all means include Maori songs. Most people would agree that Maori music is beautiful.
I remember being taught the poi and stick-based action songs at primary school. They were fun and a good way to connect with Maori culture. Visiting the local marae was another good experience we had.
I don’t think the more violent aspects of any culture should be taught. There is enough violence in the world already. I include sanctioning the bowling of cricket balls at batsmens’ heads, and the boorish sledging that goes with it.
But the chief role of a school is not to teach culture – be it kapa haka or ballet. It’s to teach knowledge. It follows that the best knowledge to teach is the knowledge that will help the child thrive in the world beyond school.
We should teach history – accurate history, including accurate Maori-Crown history. We should not rewrite that history to make some people in the class feel better about themselves.
If the evidence shows that there are two equally valid points of view about some past event, we should acknowledge that and teach both.
If the evidence for one view vastly outweighs the evidence for the other, we should acknowledge that too. In such a case it would be dishonest to pretend that both views are equally valid.
In other words, we should be honest with our children. Whatever the issue, we should let the facts dictate, not feelings. If they emerge from school able to think and debate rationally, we will have done them a great service.
A Conservative Party education spokesman during the Margaret Thatcher years said this: “The purpose of education is to teach children about the world outside the school gate, where winners do very well, and losers do poorly.”
Students who master reading, writing, arithmetic, science, economics, history, geography, and LIVING foreign languages are generally winners who do very well.
Conversely, students who master kapa haka, waiata, bone carving, flax weaving, and a DEAD language get to pat themselves on the back for connecting with a primitive stone-age culture are generally losers who do poorly.
Of course, rather than taking personal responsibility for the poor choices and lack of application in acquiring worthwhile knowledge that underlie their non-achievement, they can always blame wicked whitey for disturbing their Hobbesian state of nature (“in which life was nasty, brutish and short) in which these skills were actually relevant.
Reuben, I agree, with one exception.
I would encourage the teaching of the dead language of Latin, whose words and structures live on in, and assist the understanding of, at least six other languages – including two of the three most widely spoken, English and Spanish.
I think it would be a good idea to teach the Romance languages together, given that in many cases only the word endings are different.
But yes, in preparing children for the modern world, we must constantly defy mediocrity in all its forms and expose them to the best that has been thought and done.
If we don’t, other countries will, and we’ll only have ourselves to blame for our failure.
Do you not think you are slightly contradicting yourself by suggesting that Maori is a dead language whilst also suggesting one should study Latin?
I have never suggested Maori is a dead language. I think it’s a beautiful language.
But whether it lives or dies should depend on those who wish to use it. No one should be forced to use it.
Those who do use it do so with great pride and precision, and I admire them for it.
It is ironic and sad that our education system insists on
perfect Maori pronunciation and diction (as it should), while permitting and encouraging the sloppiest of English (in
accordance with the predominantly Marxist educators’ ethos of destroying Western civilisation).
Latin lives in at least six languages, including two of the world’s most used – English and Spanish. It is immensely helpful in the study of those languages to be aware of the Latin components and what they mean.
In the section entitled “PROTECTION OF THE MAORI LANGUAGE” you seem to suggest that protecting the Maori language is a bad thing. That teachers shouldn’t do that. Why do you think that is?
Please bear in mind, MDM, that the article was written by a graduated trainee teacher, not by me.
And you are responsible for that which you post just how?
To reply to the other post:
(A) since when was Maori compulsory?
(B) since when did we start allowing sloppy English? (your break into “Marxism” suggests that is a complete ideological fallacy, not a real occurance in the real world)
(C) if you can visualise Latin as a means to appreciating other languages, even though it is a dead language, why can you not afford the same for Maori, or indeed any other language (Vietnamise for example)
I’ll reply here as your latest post denies the right of reply for some reason.
It’s kind of hard to take you seriously if you can’t answer my three simple questions A, B & C
Preservation of the Maori Language encourages New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori ancestry to adopt a monocultural identity that raises up one set of ancestors while trampling down another. Since Maori had no words for even the simplest economic and technological concepts, bogus words (typically transliterations of English words EVERYONE already knows and understands) have to be FABRICATED so that Maori can be rescusitated today, e.g. “waea” for “wire.” Stupidity, plain and simple!
What has the invention of words got to do with anything? It’s not relevant to your other points
You seem to have slipped it in there just to “take a bash”
MDM, your irrationality is showing once again.
1. You stated that I seemed to suggest something.
2. I pointed out that it was another person doing that suggesting.
3. You equated my posting his words with me having written them.
It is very hard to take you seriously.
And to reply to the haka one:
I don’t see haka as childish and boorish. I’m not offended. Why should a tradition change just because you are? What if I decide tomorrow that I find handshakes terribly passe? What do we do then?
We ignore you, because you would be in a minority of one.
But if, on the other hand, a majority of citizens and visitors found shaking hands with visitors offensive, then the state would be derelict in its duty to continue to insist that visitors be greeted with handshakes.
So you’re suggesting that you are a majority of NZers and International visitors and that you speak on their behalf?
If we ran a poll, would you abide by its findings?
I am aware of 12 polls in which 80% of respondents opposed racial preference.
What do you say?
To me, the haka represents thuggish intimidation and the people doing it look and sound totally ridiculous with their bulging eyes and dramatically extended tongues. The only time I can ‘tolerate’ it is just before an All Blacks game when it somehow seems appropriate with its thuggish intimidation of the opposing team.
However, to have people bursting into stomping and chanting with bulging eyes and extended tongues before everything that opens and shuts, tries my patience enormously and usually elicits a disgusted spiel from me each time I hear it. It is usually totally inappropriate to the occasion.
Helen, you’re welcome to your interpretation, I’d disagree and say that if you knew what it was about you may have a different view. I’m waiting for John to tell me why we shouldn’t ban the handshake.
If I knew that my visitor was offended by my handshake, I would not offer my hand. What would you do?
Think carefully, because you know what my next question is going to be, don’t you?
60,000 Americans in Chicago seemed to find it a very entertaining and enjoyable spectacle. Anyhow, if you think a haka looks ridiculous think for a moment how highland sword dancing looks to someone who’s never seen any such thing.
The usual failed socialist attempt at equivalence.
In concluding that 60,000 Americans “seemed to find the haka a very entertaining and enjoyable spectacle”, you ignore the fact that the American basketball team at the recent world champs (who were actually asked) found it ridiculous.
You ignore the fact that highland sword dancing is not accompanied by boorish and intimidating gestures, or inflicted on every visiting dignitary whether they like it or not.
If NZ, around the time it considered itself an state, had beaten the US at basketball following a haka, basketball haka would have become a legitimate norm. As it is this does strike me as a bit ridiculous (but not matched for hilarity by an ice-hockey haka in front of bewildered Eastern Europeans).
BTW John I’m very curious how you define ‘socialist’. There are some things I really don’t like about socialism but unfortunately your brush seems so broad as to render the insult meaningless.
Stephen, with respect I can’t see how you can even think of comparing highland sword dancing with the haka. My understanding is that the latter is an incitement to war, intimidation of the enemy, showing extreme dislike, (please correct me if I’m wrong) whereas the highland sword dance is another form of dance using props. You wouldn’t compare acrobatic dancing or pole dancing (to name but two) with a haka so your comparison is nonsensical.
Given the haka’s meaning, how can it seem fitting to be done when something joyously momentous happens in this country? It’s totally inappropriate and unbelievably wrong. It just doesn’t fit with the occasion.
I’d agree that the haka can’t match highland sword dancing for ridiculousness, but they both stem from marshal traditions and displays of physical prowess.
Perhaps you don’t understand the meaning as well as you think. See below.
Helen, that is.
The meaning of the haka is irrelevant. What counts is how it is received.
Maori insistence that the host’s meaning must take precedence over the guest’s feelings just highlights their selfishness. Civilised hosts take pains to find out what their hosts like and dislike.
As far as I know, only Maori persist with behaviour that they know is likely to offend their guests.
Can you offer me some examples of guests who have been offended? I mean most people are prep’d on what to expect, aren’t they?
Marie Krarup, Danish MP. She had no doubt been prepped, but it didn’t change her opinion. Do you think the Queen enjoys being gesticulated at every time she comes here?
Rubbish, Stephen. I love highland dancing – used to do it and compete also. The sword dance doesn’t resemble the haka in any way, shape or form. The swords aren’t used to intimidate and in fact don’t leave the ground. It was a form of entertainment. You are welcome to think it looks ridiculous but I don’t really see how you can say that seeing it was entertainment even though obviously not to your liking. I’ve never found any form of dance to be ‘ridiculous’ so wrong choice of word. It was just not your ‘cup of tea’. Fine. Everyone can’t like everything.
However, getting back to the haka – I can’t for the life of me find how anyone can ‘enjoy’ it. For the Americans (and other nationalities) it is a novelty and they don’t realise the implications. I’m sure if they saw it done day in and day out they would quickly tire of it in big dollops. Anything ‘in your face’ is intimidating and is certainly difficult to ‘enjoy’.
Millions of Americans watch WWE events every week. I think they could tolerate it. And if you want to consider something scary, look into the WWE crowd and then realise that these are the voters who are determining where the NZ SAS’s next mission will be (if you like perverted militarism).
As for highland dancing, little red-haired girls trying to do the moves is about as absurd as a group of out-of-shape girls trying to do a haka. I’ll grant that you couldn’t possibly have been worse at it than my sister.
More equivalence. It’s important that neutral readers understand the tricks people like Stephen pull to normalise barbarity.
Helen – Haka is more than an “intimaidating war dance”. It’s also to show unity – hence its use at things like funerals, welcomings etc.
It’s not quite as in your face as you might think. And ” the implications” might not be what you think.
If Helen thinks a cannibal war dance is in her face, then it is.
It’s strange John, I can’t reply to your posts. You’ve taken off the right of reply for some reason.
I don’t quite understand the logic of your last post. As far as I can tell-:
Stephen says he finds Highland Sword Dancing ridiculous. Helen says she finds Haka ridiculous. Yet, you’ve unanimously declared that Stephen is a devious trickster and that Helen is correct and well within her rights.
Does it not hold that Stephen is also well within his rights to hold Highland Sword Dancing as ridiculous?
I can’t help it that you don’t understand logic. Funny dances by men in skirts with weapons lying on the ground aren’t offensive. Threatening dances by men in skirts with weapon raised (as per the taiaha challenge) are. It’s pretty clear to most people – and no, I can’t supply all their names and addresses.
Why did you delete my commments?
Been away, no disrespect intended.
I can’t reply to your earlier posts, as mentioned before. So:
(a) Marie Krarup? She was noted for her extereme views before she arrived here. That was well known well publicised beforehand and she had previous form for outspoken comments. An outlier, is all I can say. Let’s try another example, shall we? The Queen? I think she is well briefed, knows exactly what she is in for and exactly what it all means. I think she is fine with it. We’ll never know either way with her, though, will we? Unless you’ve got a DDI for her. So let’s find another example, please.
(b) You didn’t answer my question. You said that Helen was allowed to find Haka ridiculous but that Stephen wasn’t allowed to find Highland dancing ridiculous and was a dodgy trickster for suggesting as such. You seem to hold different people to different morals depending on the story they tell.
And your reasoning that it’s all because the Haka is a threatening dance? I’ve already explained that it isn’t always:
https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/preparing-the-parrots-a-training-college-graduate-on-the-cultural-corruption-of-teachers/comment-page-1/#comment-16794
And your response is:
“If Helen thinks it is threatening, it is”
So, again, why will you not let Stephen has his word that Highland dancing is equally ridiculous?
The softcock leftism which says children are little adults who can decide their own path in life and have the same rights as adults has led to the abolition of corporal punishment in schools.
Behind this current, as one might expect, is revolutionary Marxism.
Marx claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. An existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until full socialism is achieved.
Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.
One social relationship identified by Marxist-Leninists as ripe for exploitation in the promotion of dialectical conflict was the adult-child relationship.
Traditional authority figures (parents, teachers, cops) could be blackened as “oppressive” with children painted as needing to be liberated from authoritarian control structures.
This deliberate assault on adult authority militates against good discipline, undermines the learning opportunities of kids who don’t misbehave in class, and impacts hardest the children (particularly boys from fatherless homes) most in need of firm boundaries.
I grew up in single-parent home headed by my mother. Lacking a father to set the boundaries I needed, it would be fair to say that upon hitting adolescence, I became somewhat challenging.
When I was at high school in the late 1970s, I recall repeatedly acting up in a class taught by a soft-voiced little old lady relieving teacher. Eventually, she’d had enough of my misbehaviour, and I was sent along to the principal to get the cane.
Back then, top-level rugby players held full-time jobs, and depending on where they lived, were mostly teachers or farmers. I soon learned that standing behind the little old lady I’d been harassing was a 120kg ex-All Black front-rower, who made sure I didn’t sit down for the next week, and that if I didn’t want a repeat, I had the option of modifying my behaviour.
When I got home, my mother (also a teacher) asked how my day had been.
Her response to my mumbled “I got the cane” was “Well, you must have done something to deserve it!”
Today, the parents would be up at the school with a battery of lawyers, serving a lawsuit.
I also remember a kid at my high school copping a severe caning and 2-week suspension for telling a teacher to “get fucked.”
The rest of us were completely aghast that he’d dared speak like that to a teacher.
Swearing at and threatening teachers is now commonplace even in primary schools
After her retirement, my mother kept her hand in as a relieving teacher.
During the course of a relieving stint at Ponsonby Primary (around 90 percent Maori and Polynesian), she had occasion to tell a seven year old part-Maori boy to sit down and to stop pinching, punching, poking and generally harassing other children, as it was preventing her from teaching properly.
The boy approached her in a threatening manner with that psycho eye-rolling look [who says the haka is “harmless” and doesn’t influence children’s behaviour] which these people get when they’re acting tough, and said “You white bitch! I’m gonna come back with a knife and cut you!”
Where does a seven year old boy get an attitude like that?
And where does he get the idea it’s OK to talk to any adult, let alone a teacher, in such manner?
My mother brought in the principal.
She was told the boy didn’t have a dad so the school should go easy on him
His punishment?
An hour “cooling off” in the principal’s office and having to apologise, which he did with such bad grace it was an apology in name only.
Had it been me, I’d have had the little mongrel outside, held him off the floor by the scruff of the collar, and told him “If you EVER speak to me like that again, I’ll kick your ass all around this corridor!”
But then again, I’m an anachronistic dinosaur who believes that “Children have NO RIGHTS!”
I’ve no idea what that has to do with the post but I’d venture a suggestion that the “softcock leftism” is mearly a theory that “violence begets voilence”.
The views and values of the leftist counter-culture now dominate our society, as evidenced by the Preparing the Parrots article at the head of this thread, which also illustrates how this has come about. “Violence begets violence”? How about “Firm boundaries beget right behaviour” or “Train a child up in the way that he shall go and he shall never depart from it” or “Spare the rod and spoil this child”?
.
I didn’t at any point suggest that firm boundaries were not necessary, nor that discipline was not appropriate.
Perhaps you are confused between discpline that does, and doesn’t, use violence?
Let’s start with:
– Do you believe that children learn by mimicing their parent’s behaviour?
This is called Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics): saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, bad things would ensue.
The suggestion that we must not physically discipline children lest they grow up to be violent also contains elements of the Straw Man Argument, or creating an exaggerated caricature of an opponent’s argument.
There’s a world of difference between a boy who “gets the bash” every time his parents are displeased with him over anything and who sees his dad routinely acting like Jake the Muss towards other adults; and a boy who is occasionally spanked on the bum with an open hand after non-physical discipline has failed to produce the required outcome.
One learns that “might makes right” and that the strong and brutal tyrannise over the weak as the natural order of things.
The other learns not to push the boundaries of appropriate behaviour.
Both are likely to carry these approaches into their own parenting style.
Shortly after I returned to New Zealand from Australia in 1988, new reports told of three Maori boys, two aged 13, one aged 14, who’d broken into a house near Wellington. When apprehended on the premises by police, they were found to have put several kittens into a microwave oven and “nuked” them. Asked why they had done this, the boys told police, “They were crying [for attention], they were annoying us.”
This casual, routine brutality, and complete lack of sensitivity and empathy towards something smaller and weaker, leaves one in no doubt what kind of upbringing these kids would have had and what kind of parents they would have made.
Kia ora John Ansell & friends. You probably won’t remember, but I made a few comments on this blog a few years ago. I am not a supporter of John Ansell, but I just wanted to pop in, say hello & wish you all a happy Waitangi day. I still enjoy reading this blog & I am still on a path of learning. I wish you all well & God bless you all. Happy Waitangi day.
Team denied entry into basketball tournament because coach isn’t Maori.
Is this the wayof the future in New Zealand?
The article from the Rotorua Post and NZ Herald. of 5/2/15
Some say the Treaty of Waitangi is a “Living Document”, but it’s been on life $$$uport for far too long!
We must let go of the Treaty of Waitangi as it was no more than a very simple, moral and practical way of allowing Britain to obtain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, Britain to unite all the people of New Zealand under one flag and one law, the survival of the tangata Maori and the preservation of their lands. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” Lt. Governor Hobson.
Once the Treaty was signed, Tangata Maori became British Subjects under one flag and one law!
Britain obtained sovereignty over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery on the 21 May 1840 under the dependency of New South Wales as an interim measure before New Zealand became an independent British Colony on the 3 May 1841.
The Treaty was an agreement between Queen Victoria and tangata Maori, therefore if today’s Maori do not like the deal their ancestors did, then let them sort it out with the Queen. Not our problem!
“The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and authority to make laws. ……If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. “The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation” written by Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs in 1923).
Five months after Britain declared sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 superseded the Treaty and was enacted on the 3 May 1841. The Royal Charter/Letters Patent was Our True Founding Document and First Constitution, which separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, all under the watchful eye of Great Britain. In 1947 we became a Sovereign Nation when we adopted the Statute of Westminster.
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent was the reason my ancestors and thousands of others came to New Zealand. New Zealand was a British Colony under one flag and one law, but we continue to argue about the Treaty of Waitangi today that is, Not our Problem!
Our concern must be that Governments have not followed the instructions issued by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 of one flag and one law for all.
Forget the Treaty of Waitangi and embrace Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, OUR First Constitution and True Founding Document and don’t let anyone tell you differently! It lies in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand in Wellington gathering dust.
Forget Waitangi Day, it is not our day. Let’s celebrate OUR day, “Independence Day”, 3rd May as they did in 1841, irrespective of race, colour or creed. (See attachment).
By Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au
“Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, Our True Founding Document and First Constitution” can be purchased from, ONZF, P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. $10-00 incl. p & p.
If it was a Maori basketball tournament, that would be fair enough Owen. Otherwise, not.
Unlike many people, I have no problem with the Maori All Blacks, since the NZ Rugby Union is a private organization, with its own traditions.
Those who cry foul over the lack of a White All Blacks team would have to apply the same logic to the lack of a New Zealand Polytechs team to balance NZ Universities, or NZ Over-23s to balance the Under-23s. Where would it end – NZ Plumbers & Welders, NZ Painters & Paperhangers?
Maori sports tournaments (the Maori Tennis Champs, for example) are exclusive, but then so are Catholic (Marist) ones.
The only problem I would have is if they were publicly-funded.
Hello John, I do believe you have missed my point. Yes it was a maori basketball tournament, therefor you had to identify as a maori to enter, that in it self should be enough for a race relations concilliator to pay it some attention, but we know that will never happen.
My point being, perhaps not very well made, was that the maori girls team was denied entry because the coach was not maori. If that is not a case of blatant racism, denied entry because of race of the coach, then what is?\
I still fail to see why there is any problem in this context of racism applied to maori. They are not a race, they are polynesians who settled in New Zealand and called themselves maori. That does not make them a race, they are New Zealand polynesians and therefor should come under the same umbrella as pasifica when referred to in a racial manner.
We are all living in a land situated in what is known as Pacifica, the sooner everyone is referred to as members of Pacifica, and no differential applied because of ethnicity the sooner this land will once again prosper for all, and hopefully kids will not then have to be fed by the state.
Owen, I take your second point, but not your first.
Presumably the rules of this private Maori (perhaps inter-iwi?) tournament called for all players and coaches to be Maori.
If the rules did not make it clear that the coaches must also be Maori, that would be a matter for the aggrieved team to take up with the tournament’s organisers, not the Race Relations Conciliator.
It’s no different from, say, a church whose rules stipulate that all clerics must be men. Now that many not seem very enlightened to those outside the church, but those who join do so knowing that them’s the rules.
Those who don’t agree with that rule, but still join, presumably regard the membership benefits compensate for their frustration with what they regard as a sexist clergy.
They may agitate to have the rule changed (as many churches have done), but the final decision is for the church. It can’t be vetoed by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs or the Human Rights Commissioner.
I have spoken at Women’s and Men’s Probus Clubs, which are closed to the other gender because they prefer to socialise with their own gender. I think they should be free to do that, and so should Maori basketballers if they so desire.
Should a group of Europeans form a White Basketball Club, that would certainly cause more of a stir than a club set up for a minority group, but they should be free to do so.
I do agree with what you say about race. This is why most scholars prefer the word ethnicity now.
In his book Cannons Creek to Waitangi, Andy Oakley argues that there’s no such thing as race. This fascinating documentary backs him up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHPMgDxVL0
Presumably the rules of this private Maori (perhaps inter-iwi?) tournament called for all players and coaches to be Maori.
Perhaps they do, but if such rules were laid down as a requirement for entry into the competition one had to be of white ethnicity, for example a Scots team versus an English team, do you think that would get a free pass from the powers that be??
I think so, yes. Nobody complains about the Spillane Cup Marist rugby tournaments. And I imagine tossing the caber in the Waipa Highland Games requires Scottish ancestry.
It’s a fact some New Zealanders have Maori ancestry and I cannot see any problems with these people setting up there own teams as long as others can do the same but they should not be recognised as a team representing New Zealand.
Our main concern should be that all New Zealand are treated the same under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
When the Lions or Springboks used to tour New Zealand, they’d play the NZ Maoris, NZ Universities and NZ Juniors. When the All Blacks toured the UK they’d play the British Combined Services. All of these teams have toured overseas, and when they do they represent those entities, not their country.
Were the Lions or the Springbok teams selected on Racial lines? Or does one not have to be a Maori to be selected for what is commonly called the Maori All Blacks? How is it that if you have a proportion of maori blood one can play for the All Blacks and the Maori All Blacks. If one does not then one can only play for the New Zealand All Blacks.
Was it not the South Africans who initially refused a tour by the Maori All Blacks because the team was selected on racial lines? This of course being the new South Africa, the rainbow nation.. I believe the team was allowed to tour eventually, but the point was made.
” and when they do they represent those entities, not their country.”
Why then is it necessary to call the team New Zealand Maori? Surely that is telling everyone that the team is picked on racial lines? is that not what all the stink was about when the Springbok tour was disrupted? the team was selected on racial lines? even though at that time soccer was the sport of choice of the majority.
OWEN: Were the Lions or the Springbok teams selected on Racial lines?
JOHN: The Lions were not. The Springboks were, until 1981. Then they weren’t. Now they are again – but instead of being all-white, they now have a non-white quota.
OWEN: Or does one not have to be a Maori to be selected for what is commonly called the Maori All Blacks?
JOHN: One does, but the merest smidgen of Maori blood will do. Christian Cullen qualified.
OWEN: How is it that if you have a proportion of maori blood one can play for the All Blacks and the Maori All Blacks. If one does not then one can only play for the New Zealand All Blacks.
JOHN: The same way that if you’re under 23 you can play for the New Zealand Colts, and if you’re at university you can play for NZ Universities. If you’re neither, and you want to play for a team that wears black, then you’ll have to make the NZ Sevens or the All Blacks.
OWEN: Was it not the South Africans who initially refused a tour by the Maori All Blacks because the team was selected on racial lines?
JOHN: It was not. They refused to allow All Blacks teams that included Maori or Polynesians. Until 1970, when Bryan Williams (Samoan), Sid Going, Buff Milner and Blair Furlong were allowed to tour as “honorary whites”.
OWEN: This of course being the new South Africa, the rainbow nation.. I believe the team was allowed to tour eventually, but the point was made.
JOHN: That was the old South Africa. The star of the Rugby World Cup in the rainbow nation was one J. Lomu.
OWEN: ” and when they do they represent those entities, not their country.” Why then is it necessary to call the team New Zealand Maori?
JOHN: Because they’re representing New Zealand Maori.
OWEN: Surely that is telling everyone that the team is picked on racial lines?
JOHN: It is, and it is. And that’s fine. What would not be fine is if the team was called New Zealand, and it was all Maori BECAUSE non-Maori were shut out. If it was all Maori on merit, that would also be fine. That is what’s so wrong with the decision of the South African Rugby Union to require the Springboks selectors to pick black players on racial grounds rather than on merit. It would be like the US Olympic team having to put an undeserving white player in the Dream Team.
OWEN: is that not what all the stink was about when the Springbok tour was disrupted? the team was selected on racial lines? even though at that time soccer was the sport of choice of the majority.
JOHN: No. The stink was about allowing in a team that represented an apartheid state. The team itself was not racially selected. It included a black or coloured fly half, Errol Tobias. Why can we believe that? Because more than anything, Springboks want to win!
Hi Glenn, yes I remember you were a genuine seeker after truth, and I admire you for that. Happy three days ago!
Thanks John. I hope that you & your supporters are well. I am still seeking to increase my knowledge on all things that interest me. I admire you also (maybe a little begrudgingly) for your dogged determination in the face of hostility.
Couple of points on the above discussion. I don’t think Scottish heritage is a pre requisite for participation in the Waipu highland games. The games have been open to strong men from all over the world for some time. There are however Chinese games in Auckland that do require Chinese heritage. Korean table tennis teams, Indian cricket & hockey teams with heritage requirements. I also understand that the New Zealand Dalmation society is trying to start a rugby team in Auckland with a heritage requirement. No one has any problem ( myself included) with any of these organisations trying to preserve their culture in this manner.
I personally would qualify for the New Zealand Maori rugby team, but there is one major problem. I am a terrible rugby player. He he. Take care John Ansell & friends.
eewww what a bunch of sickos! I’m a Kiwi and this writing is racist. I’m not sure who John Ansel is but he definitely likes Hitler. A white guy doesn;t understand Maori, no shit, this guys is an idiot. He probably doesn’t speak Maori so how can he speak about these things. Stop trying to hurt people and try to be happy with your life, you only get one chance. peace.
Accusations of “racism” and associated leftist dog whistle terminolgy are typically thrown around by people who lack substantive arguments when confronted with those by others.
These translate to: “This is a bad person, meaning I don’t have to engage with and rebut any of the arguments they have advances.
They are deployed by those who have learned that only by holding “correct’ (as determined by Marxists and injected into our cultural discourse) views and values does on qualify for membership of “Club Virtue.”
Having internalised these views and values, they have s strong emotional resistance to having them questioned.
Pay attention, Michael Long.
“Redneck” is an imported American term that has no place in New Zealand’s public discourse.
It refers to “poor Southern white trash”, who before the American Civil War, were the overseer class on the estates owned by rich planters. They’d sat on horses toting whips and guns, overseeing black slaves as they went about their work in the cotton fields.
After the slaves were freed, this white overseer class was reduced to manual labour, typically eking out a subsistence-level existence as sharecroppers in much the same manner as the freed slaves who’d elected to remain in the South.
Long hours bending over in the hot sun meant white necks soon turned red, and the term “redneck” was coined to describe the blind, reflexive racial bigotry of those who resented the loss of their former status.
If we’re going to import pejorative terms from other countries, it seems entirely fair to deploy another widespread American slur, “Wigger”, as a counterpoint to “Redneck.”
A Wigger is someone who rats out their own race for the warm glow that comes from lining up with a supposedly “oppressed” people.
Like all Western countries, New Zealand has a raft of these self-despising race-traitors — both in our universities and amongst the tertiary-educated — who have been helped by their Marxist lecturers to see that whites are to blame for all the evils of the world.
These are people who told us three decades ago that apartheid was a social and moral evil in South Africa. Now, they’re telling us that it’s a social and moral good in New Zealand. Whether apartheid is to be decried or endorsed is based entirely on the skin colour of its beneficiaries. Whites always deserve a good kicking.
Leftists despise their own culture. They’ve been schooled to hate Western civilisation and regard Western countries as racist, sexist, colonialist oppressors. They desperately want to see other cultures as somehow morally superior to our own.
They’re not. The Judeo-Christian culture that originated in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, then took root in Europe, is vastly superior to other cultures. Many non-whites have also benefited massively in adopting Western cultural norms and values. This fact is undeniable to anyone except a moron.
Judeo-Christian culture hasn’t always lived up to its own standards (Communism, Fascism, the Inquisition, Conquistadores, slavery, periodic discrimination against non-white minorities), but has always self-corrected due to the principled actions of people of goodwill who have identified and remedied these shortfalls. This culture has raised more people from poverty, ignorance, and barbarism than any other in world history. As such, it is to be celebrated, not denigrated.
Those promoting “biculturalism” claim that the cultural values of New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent identifying monoculturally as Maori should trump all others on the basis of ancestral longevity of some ancestors in the land.
Yet traditional Maori culture says that one should honour all ancestors equally, not raise some up, and trample down others.
I see no reason why Maori culture should be afforded an undeserved pre-eminence. By any objective standard, the sum total of its contribution to human felicity is an ugly, gesticulating, tongue-poking, eye-rolling, thigh-slapping war dance of limited curiosity value when deployed before a rugby match.
If anyone can show otherwise, let them step up to the plate.
Racism is often conflated by Leftists with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege and the belief that newcomers should be welcomed but required to conform to Judeo-Christian cultural norms is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice.
Racism occurs where a group of prejudiced individuals get together to create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else solely on the basis of group membership.
I will leave it to readers to decide if NZ is a racist country, and if so, which group benefits from this racism.
Excellent post, well researched and very well written. Full of truths without any bowing to bolitical correctness, Well Done!
https://youtu.be/uQAmdZvKf6M Children understand better than you ever will, you use the same rhetoric that Jane Elliot uses to illustrate the discrediting of the oppressed voice, such an old, bullying strategy that the uninformed continue to manipulate, so tired. Do better research and have a more informed theoretical underpinning. Have a look at Dialectical Critical Social Realism, it might, just might help you, if you have the intellectual capacity.
I always find it interesting when people impugn my intellectual capacity as a substitute for rational discussion, thus impugning their own.
Perhaps you could answer this question if it’s not too difficult: Do you agree with the young teacher’s facts? If not, which ones did he get wrong?
You confuse academia with intelligence. Anyone who calls something “Dialectical Critical Social Realism” is heavy on the former and light on the latter. If they had the manners to write clearly, I might read it.
Parroting proven lies is the opposite of intelligent, and the opposite of honest. Intelligence requires thinking, and teaching ought to demand honesty. Succeeding in New Zealand academic institutions now clearly requires the suspension of both. That is a national disgrace.
I watched the Jane Elliot documentary with great interest and much horror. It came from a country where racism is much more deeply embedded than in New Zealand, thanks to the enslavement of African blacks by American whites.
There is absolutely no parallel in New Zealand, where the only enslavement was of Maori by Maori – a practice abolished by the white people, along with cannibalism, female infanticide and intertribal genocide.
No doubt you were intending to imply that the young teacher and I are racist. We are not. What we are is critical of the dishonesty of the Maori sovereignty movement, its academic and governmental appeasers, and the forcefeeding of violence and lies to schoolchildren in the name of indulging Maori radicals, for fear of provoking their violence.
That fear is what drives the Maorification of Everything in New Zealand, not legitimate grievances, of which there are few.
There is a world of difference between criticism and racism. Just as there is a world of difference between racism in America and racism in New Zealand – which mainly emanates from Maori radicals.
I am in favour of Maori culture, apart from the violence. Do you support violence?
I support any group or religion being able to worship or practice their beliefs freely, but not to impose those beliefs upon others who may be repelled by them.
Thus I am not in favour of compulsory haka in schools, but am happy with the teaching of Maori songs and dances along with those of other cultures.
Most of all, like this courageous graduate, I am in favour of honesty. I commend the habit to you – you’ll sleep easier.
Depressing and enraging read in equal measure. But this is where moral relativism and the doctrines of political correctness have brought us. Education and the media are filled pretty much exclusively with those who parrot these kind of views. I doubt you would get a job in either of these occupations unless you are thoroughly indoctrinated into these absurdities. Not for long anyway.
Hello all.
I have just spent the better part of three hours engrossed in the original post, and the resulting comments. I was worried that this site might only share the thoughts of one side of the “debate”, I was happily proved my worries were unfounded. However, I was saddened by the emotional, and yes bigoted, rebuttal of some of the comments.
The young person who wrote the original post did an incredibly brave thing, and I believe he wrote it with much mana. I am not Maori, and do not identify as such, I am first generation Kiwi, and identify as that and I use the word mana in the way it is intended. I did not learn Te Reo, nor have any desire to learn it now, I have enough trouble with english, but I respect the language for what it is. I use the word mana because I do not feel english encapsulates what it means as well or as beautifully.
He was able to do what I wish I could have done whilst in a nursing degree in Otago in 1999. Instead of having the gumption to eloquently outline the flaws and rationally outline an opposing point of view, I withdrew from my degree. I did so because I could not and would not toe the line when it came to being taught about the Treaty of Waitangi and pseudo history of the Maori people that was being taught at the time, to the exclusion of all other cultures. It didn’t help we were being taught about iridology and reflexology, (I apologise to anyone who uses such methods to determine illness and injury within the body successfully, my biased view is they don’t have any place in scientific medical practice).
The treaty in itself is an interesting and significant historical document, but it has been twisted and reinterpreted many times to suit and profit a few. Many iwi have benefited beyond belief from it and some are using those benefits wisely and with great thoughtfulness. You never hear from or about them. I have no issue with them, I respect them. They are using their culture to better their community using the tools that westerners have brought. Forward thinking and brave. The navel gazing cowards who look back and still cry foul conveniently forget certain parts of history that do not favour them could learn a thing or two from these people. It sickens and saddens me that a minority still sways the majority to such an extent, and tarnishes the reputation of all.
So many of us refuse to say anything regarding the “indoctrination” not only in our schools but in every aspect of our daily lives. I for one am guilty of it.
But why?
We are scared of being labeled racist when we know we are not. We are not able to intellectually criticise and dissemminate information to improve a situation. And this is a BIG situation and a BIG problem. There is a lot of unhappy ill feeling in New Zealand. I’m a coward, I more than likely won’t go and stand on government steps and lobby for change. I don’t want to become a target. I applaude those who do for.
In an ideal world we would take the best of all civilisations, old and new, and do away with what doesn’t work. I think someone may have already have mentioned something about learning from history’s mistakes? I have hope New Zealand will get there one day, but at the moment it feels a very long way off.
Thank you for that comment, Concerned Citizen. I’ll make sure the brave young man gets to read it from his new home in a foreign land.
Our failure to tackle educational racism is caused by the relentless “niceism” of the dripping wet people in charge.
(Or as you more correctly identify it, cowardice.) It has made New Zealand a very dishonest country.
As a Dutchman said to a friend of mine, “We Dutch are too honest to be nice. You Kiwis are too nice to be honest.”
Time to Honour Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent
OUR ‘TRUE’ FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND ‘FIRST’ CONSTITUTION
The Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document to give part-Maori privilege and advantage over those who cannot claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry when the Treaty only gave Maori, “the same rights as the people of England”. The Treaty of Waitangi was the most generous gift to a primitive people on their way to self-destruction that was ever given by a super power. After Lt. Governor Hobson had declared Sovereignty over New Zealand on the 21st May 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose and was put into storage where it was later damaged by fire and rats.
By 1831 intertribal fighting had devastated the “tangata Maori” population and 13 Ngapuhi chiefs asked King William IV to be their guardian and protector, but it was soon found this could only be successfully achieved by Britain obtaining sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and “tangata-Maori” becoming British Subjects.
During 1840, starting on the 6th February the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between 512 “tangata Maori chiefs” and Queen Victoria where the chiefs gave up their territories and governments to legally allow British Sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency and laws of New South Wales. This arrangement only lasted for 12 months before New Zealand separated from New South Wales by Royal Charter and became a British Colony
With British Sovereignty firmly asserted, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 ratified that Sovereignty had been legally and morally obtained by Great Britain over all the Islands of New Zealand. This was recognised and accepted by the rest of the world, including the hundreds of Chiefs that attended the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 and Maori Parliament in 1879.
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent with its Royal Seal attached separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and New Zealand became a British Colony with a Governor and a Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, all under the watchful eye of Great Britain. Lt. Governor Hobson was sworn in as our first Governor on the 3 May 1841 and the first sitting of the Legislative Council (Government) was held on the 24 May 1841.
If the Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document and not the Royal Charter/Letters Patent we will never solve our racial and social problems, the Treaty will continue to drive a wedge between the people of New Zealand.
The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between “tangata Maori” and Queen Victoria for Britain to gain sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution that set up our Political and Justice systems under one law for all.
In 1947, with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster that granted New Zealand complete autonomy in domestic as well as foreign affairs, we all became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
It is interesting to note that Te Papa and the Ministry of Justice Electoral and Constitutional Policy Unit do not hold copies or any information on the Royal Charter/Letters Patent. We asked Te Papa under the Official Information Act (OIA), “Does Te Papa have a copy of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter and if so, why is it not given its rightful place at Te Papa”? Claire McClintock, Senior Advisor, Office of the Chief Executive, Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand replied. “Te Papa does not have a copy of the Charter”.
We then asked the Ministry of Justice under the OIA, “Why is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent not mentioned or part of New Zealand’s Legal System”? Fiona Illingworth, Manager, Electoral and Constitutional Policy, Ministry of Justice replied, “Your request is refused under Section 18(g) of the OIA 1982 as the Ministry of Justice does not hold any information relating to your request”.
Unbelievable when it is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand and listed as, “ACGO 8341, 1A19, R21434434, Charter of 1840, Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony, 16 November 1840”.
Our governments and academics have completely ignored the Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.
There is no doubt the Government and some part-Maori do not want this document made pubic as it would show how the people of New Zealand have been misled by their Politicians and Governments since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal it created. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is our Founding Document and first Constitution as confirmed by the New Zealand Gazette Notices below.
Gazette Notices and Proclamations that made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony.
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 12] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 6, 1841 [ GRATIS.
DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF NEW ZEALAND, AND THE
APPOINTMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY, CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, RN
AS GOVERNOR IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE SAME.
THE CAPITAL.
By the latest accounts from Auckland we learn that the “James” had arrived from London bearing HIS EXCELLENCY’S Commission as Governor in Chief, in and over the Islands of New Zealand, and her Majesty’s Order in Council for their separation from New South Wales. His EXCELLENCY was pleased to appoint Monday last for Proclaiming the same, and shortly afterwards a Levee was to have been held. In the Evening HIS EXCELLENCY was to have given a grand Dinner at Government House, to which all the elite of Auckland and the surrounding country have received invitations.
KORORAREKA.
Early in the morning of Monday last, the day appointed for Proclaiming HIS EXCELLENCY as Governor in Chief, &c., we were proud to observe the ships in the Harbour decorated with numerous flags. At noon they fired a Salute in honor of the occasion. The Union Jack floated
in front of the stores of Messrs Henry Thompson and Co., over the premises of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, and also at the Flag Staff Hill.
THE ILLUMINATIONS.
It is impossible for us in our limited space to describe the demonstrations of joy the inhabitants manifested in the evening on the happy occasion. Illuminations – fire-works – burning of tar barrels – firing of muskets and pistols from the hills and all parts of the Town – the parading of a band of music through the streets – the rejoicing of the Mauries – their war and other dances – all tended to make it one of the happiest possible. Among the best illuminated premises we noticed the Russell Hotel, which was very brilliant, as were those of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, on the Beach Mr. Dunn’s Inn, York street, Wood’s Hotel, the Gazette Printing Office, Captain Clayton’s new house, Mr Fenton’s &c., &c. The night was remarkably clear – the reflections of the red blaze from the Town mingling with the softened light from the “young May moon” falling upon the sparkling waters of the Bay produced a charming effect. There could not be less than two hundred Mauries on the Beach during the evening. We regret that His Excellency had not witnessed the fervour of their rejoicing. Several of the men carried muskets and powder flasks – many Maurie boys carried small flags on handsomely carved
batteaus(?) – and the females, also, vied with their partners in their manifestations of delight. The entire proceedings happily passed over without the slightest accident.
A party of Gentlemen were entertained at dinner by Henry Thompson, Esq., at his residence, Kororareka, – for the particulars of which we are indebted to a gentleman who was present. Although the party consisted of Mr. Thompson’s own friends, yet it was purely a public dinner, and was given by him in honor of His Excellency’s Appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand. The guests were – Captain Beckham, our Police Magistrate, Robert Fitzgerald, Esq., the newly appointed Police Magistrate, Frederick Whittaker, Esq., Captain Anwyl, John Scott Esq., W. S. Graham Esq., Captain Peil, Alexander Kennedy, Esq., Eugene Cafler, Esq., Daniel Pollen Esq., M.D. and John Hoggard Esq. Mr Thompson acted as Chairman, and Mr Grahame as vice Chairman. The cloth having been removed the usual toasts of – The Queen and the infant Princess – Prince Albert and the Royal Family – and the Army and Navy – were proposed and drank with all the honors. John Scott Esq., replied to the last toast on behalf of the Army with all the enthusiasm which should belong to every British Officer, and which he strongly felt at the announcement of the toast, as it recalled to his recollection those happy days of his life when he had the honor of belonging to that glorious establishment. The Chairman now called for bumpers – rose to propose the Toast of the Day and spoke as follows: Gentlemen, – we have assembled here this day for the purpose of celebrating an event of the highest importance in our admired land. At noon of this day His Excellency the Governor
proclaimed New Zealand a distinct and independent Colony – an event which will live long in our memories, and will form the subject of conversation of many a future and happy hour. But, gentlemen, we have met here more particularly for the purpose of doing honor to His Excellency Captain Hobson, on his appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand – a measure, which has produced in my breast, and which I am certain, will be responded to by every heart present – but one feeling, namely, that of unmingled delight. Had there been time since our arrival here, which was only yesterday, to have called a public dinner, it certainly would have been done, and even yet if one is got up, I have no doubt all present will be happy to attend. But it seemed to me that our rejoicings at Kororareka should be simultaneous with those at Auckland. Accordingly, Gentlemen, I avail myself of the pleasure of your company on this day, to what may be termed a private public dinner. Gentlemen, – His Excellency, previous to his arrival in this Colony, had already earned for himself a name, which guaranteed its descent into posterity. It was his good fortune to distinguish himself in an elevated position in the service of his Country. He belongs, Gentlemen, to the most glorious Establishment – to the
most formidable armada that ever graced and terrified the world. His Excellency has now, however, entered on an entirely different sphere, and there can be no doubt that the same energy – the same judgment, and the same ability that qualified him so well for Naval Command will fit him for the high office to which it has pleased Her Majesty to appoint him. To
Captain Hobson’s amiability, to his love of justice, to his strict regard for economy, and to his sterling integrity. I can bear witness; and that he may be an excellent Governor, it is only necessary that he should have around him good and faithful Councillors – men of informed and independent minds –
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 13] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 13, 1841 [ GRATIS.
PROCLAMATION
BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES.
WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the Sixteenth Day of November, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty, to erect the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND into a SEPARATE TERRITORY by the Name of HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND: Now, therefore I THE GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF, by COMMISION under the GREAT SEAL appointed, do hereby Notify and Proclaim that under Her Majesty’s said LETTERS PATENT the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND are henceforth to be designated and known as HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND and its DEPENDENCIES. And I do hereby further Notify and Proclaim, that Her Majesty has been pleased to direct that the Three Principal Islands of NEW ZEALAND hereafter or commonly Called – “THE NORTHERN ISLAND,” “THE MIDDLE ISLAND,” AND STEWART’S ISLAND” shall henceforth be designated and known respectively as “NEW ULSTER,” “NEW MUNSTER” AND “NEW LEINSTER,” of which all Her Majesty’s Subjects are hereby required to take Notice. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL AT GOVERNMENT-HOUSE, AUCKLAND, THIS 3RD DAY OF MAY, IN THE FOURTH YEAR OF HER MAJESTY’S REIGN, AND IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE.
By His Excellency’s Command, (SIGNED)
WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND. W. HOBSON, GOVERNOR.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
PROCLAMATION.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. &c., &c., &c,
WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been graciously pleased, by Commission under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the sixteenth day of November, in the Year of our Lord 1840, to constitute and Appoint me, WILLIAM HOBSON, ESQUIRE, CAPTAIN IN HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL NAVY, to be GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF in and over Her Majesty’s Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies.
NOW THEREFORE I the GOVERNOR and COMMANDER –IN-CHIEF aforesaid, do hereby Proclaim and Declare that I have this day have taken the prescribed Oaths and assumed the Administration of the Government accordingly. And I do hereby further Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty Has been pleased to appoint an EXECUTIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony, and to nominate and appoint the undermentioned Persons to be Members thereof, – That is to say:-
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING
THE COLONIAL TREASURER OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING
And I do hereby Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty has been further pleased to Appoint a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, – and to Appoint and Direct that such Legislative Council shall be formed and shall consist of the following Members:-
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR FOR THE TIME BEING
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY FOR THE TIME BEING
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TIME BEING
THE COLONIAL TREASURER for the time being, AND
THE THREE SENIOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, nominated as such in any Commission of the Peace to be issued by me, the said GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER- IN-CHIEF, or by the Governor or Acting-Governor for the time being. The GOVERNOR, fully impressed with the magnitude and importance of the duties thus confided to him, is supported by the hope that Almighty God will bless his best efforts to give full effect to these Her Majesty’s most gracious measures for the establishment of Peace and Order in this important Colony; and he relies with confidence on the loyalty of the Colonists, and on their hearty cooperation with the Government in cultivating those feelings of mutual good will which alone can insure to them the future benefit of Her Majesty’s solicitude for their welfare and prosperity.
The GOVERNOR avails himself of this occasion to appeal to the good feelings of the Colonists generally in favour of their fellow subjects of the NATIVE RACE, who require only instruction and good example to become equal to Europeans in moral, as they are already in physical attainments, and to point out to all who really have the true interests of the Country at heart, the propriety of conciliating their affection by making every charitable allowance for their defects, and by conducting all intercourse with them in a spirit of justice and forbearance. The GOVERNOR trusts that he will be afforded the satisfaction of hereafter knowing, that His endeavours for the accomplishment of Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views have not been employed in vain.
Given under my Hand and Seal at Government House, Auckland, this 3rd day of May, in the Fourth Year of Her Majesty’s Reign, and in the year of our Lord one Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-one.
(signed)
WILLIAM HOBSON,
GOVERNOR.
Colonial Secretary’s Office, Auckland, 3d May 1841
HIS EXCELLENCY, THE GOVERNOR has been pleased to Appoint the undermentioned Gentlemen to the MAGISTRATES of the Territory of New Zealand, viz.:
Beckham, Thomas Hanson, R. Davis Bunbury, Thomas Hunter, George Clarke, George Johnson, John Coates, James Mair, Gilbert Wakefield, William Cooper, George McDonogh, Arthur Edward Symonds, William Cornwallis, Dawson, Gilbert Francis Martin, S., M.D. Clendon, James Reddie Fisher, Francis Mathew, Felton Fitzgerald, Robert A. Murphy, Michael Godfrey, Edward Lee Powditch, William Halswell, Edward Store Richmond, Mathew
THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.
(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)
No 17] KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, June 24, 1841 [ GRATIS.
First Sitting Of THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, according to notice, opened the first Session of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, on the 24th May alt.
Honorable. W.SHORTLAND, Colonial Secretary,
Honorable FRANCIS FISHER, Attorney General,
Honorable GEORGE COOPER, Colonial Treasurer,
E.S.HALSWELL, Esq., one of three Senior Justices,
Being present received the Oaths and took their Seats in the Legislative Council accordingly.
JAMES COATS, Esq., was appointed Clerk of the Council, and took the Oaths of Office.
HIS EXCELLENCY then delivered the following SPEECH :-
I have availed myself of this early period to assemble the Members of the Legislative Council for the purpose of bringing under consideration, certain measures, which the altered circumstances of the Colony seem to me urgently to require. At this our first Meeting, I deem it proper to draw your attention, not only to the Royal Charter, but to the highly important Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual, which accompany it. The Charter as you are already aware, erects the Islands of New Zealand, and certain Dependencies, into a separate Colony, under the Superintendence of a Governor and Commander-in-Chief. It constitutes a Legislative Council, who are empowered to enact Laws and Ordinances for the Local Government of the Colony. It authorises the establishment of Courts of Justice, and the issue of Commissions of the Peace—and, in fact brings into complete operation, British Laws, throughout the whole Colony of New Zealand.
The Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual more particularly define the functions of the Governor and Council, and in a clear, perspicuous manner point out the duties of each. In order that you, Gentlemen, may have an opportunity of acquainting yourselves with those particular duties, I have directed the Instructions to be laid on the table, and kept open for your perusal in the Council Chamber.
I regret that I cannot at the present Meeting, lay before you the estimates of the following year, which, although in a forward state of preparation, are incomplete, owing to the non-arrival of the directions from the Lords of the Treasury, of which I am advised, and which may be daily expected.
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, continues: GENTLEMEN, –I shall lay before you an Ordinance for the present re-adoption of all such Acts of New South Wales as were in force previous to our separation, and are now applicable to this Colony. It is not my intention, however, eventually to propose for your adoption, the Laws of New South Wales, but it will be my endeavour, during the recess, aided by the advice and assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, to prepare for your consideration, such Laws as will best provide for the Administration of Justice, and the contingencies of social life, which may be expected to arise in New Zealand, therefore the measures now proposed to you, must be deemed temporary, and contingent as resulting from the present peculiar condition of the Colony. By command of Her Majesty I will bring under your consideration, the Repeal of the Land Commission Act, and submit for your adoption, an Ordinance for the same general purposes, but granting to the Governor of New Zealand, the same powers as those heretofore enjoyed by the Governor of New South Wales. I will likewise lay before you, Bills for the Regulation and Collection of the Revenue of Her Majesty’s Customs, for establishing Courts of Quarter Sessions and Requests, and for the prohibition of Distillation. – These, Gentlemen, are the only subjects for the present, on which I shall require you to deliberate.
GENTLEMEN, –We have a solemn and important duty to perform: by our means conflicting interests are to be reconciled; Harmony and Tranquility established, and measures are to be adopted for improving and elevating the character of the Aboriginal Inhabitants. In this salutary work, I confidently look for your cordial assistance and cooperation, and I trust under Devine Providence, we shall be enabled to accomplish these important objects, and give effect to Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views for the welfare, prosperity, and Civilization of this Colony.
After laying on the Table the Indemnity Bill, THE GOVERNOR adjourned the Council until
Thursday, 27th May 1841.
CONCLUSION by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
Any breach against the Crown can only be a breach against the laws of New Zealand and not the Treaty of Waitangi or the Waitangi Tribunal, where only those with a minute trace of Maori ancestry can lay a claim or participate. All alleged claims against the Crown since 1975 should have been heard by our Justice System where all New Zealand citizens could have participated as they were in the 1930’s and 1940”s when most of the recent claims were “fully and finally” settled. They should not have been heard by the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal or the Crown that allows our history and the Treaty of Waitangi to be continually distorted to allow these claims to proceed. The Treaty of Waitangi or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent gave no exclusive rights for Maori; we were all given the same rights under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed!
The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Queen Victoria and “tangata Maori”.
The Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution.
The People must speak out as our Politicians and Governments have misled us since 1975.
New Zealand Independence Day must be celebrated on the 3 May each and every year.
For further information: http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz (Royal Charter).
Support the One New Zealand Foundation Inc by becoming a member. Donations gratefully accepted.
Compiled by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 28/6/14 (c)
Good to see racism is alive and well. Congratulations on your ignorance, it had reached such a high level that it has combined with your arrogance to make a beautiful stew. Let’s have everybody be exactly the same, screw multiculturalism, let’s have monoculturalism! What kind? Well your kind of course, that would be the only kind that is right.
Is that the extent of your debating skills? Don’t suppose you’d care to outline the facts I got wrong, and more particularly why?
The worst brand of monoculturalism in this country is that of persons of mixed European-Maori descent who have elected to identify monoculturally as “Maori,” raising up one set of ancestors while trampling down another.
When the chiefs signed the TOW on behalf of those whom they represented, all Maori (including the chiefs) became British subjects.
In a free society, a single common culture to which all are required to broadly subscribe occupies the public square, The signing of the TOW and the acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty meant the culture of the public square became the Western post-Enlightenment culture brought by the settlers.
Subcultural associations, within the law, including Maori language and culture, became a private matter for those concerned.
What’s going on today is utu-seeking part-Maori who have raised up one set of ancestors while trampling down another in order to identify as “Maori” are thrusting their version of Maori language and culture into the public square as a deliberate, aggressive challenge to the common culture shared by all New Zealanders.
Racism is often conflated by the ignorant with simple prejudice, which it is not. Principled opposition to unearned racial privilege is not racism. Nor is it typically evidence of prejudice.
There is only one race. The human race. Much of what is commonly referred to as “racism” is actually ethnocentricism.
And the most disgustingly prejudiced, ethnocentric people in this country are part-Maori who have chosen to identify monoculturally as “Maori,” chopping whole branches out of their family trees in order to do so.
Those who believe in a single standard of citizenship, colourblind government, and the abolition of unearned privileges for part-Maori are the complete opposite of their ethnocentric opponents.
Racism is a different beast altogether. It occurs where a group of prejudiced, ethnocentric individuals get together to colonise or create a system affording them separate, different, or superior rights to everyone else on the basis of group membership.
And of course any downstream proposal that they revert to being treated the same as everyone will make such groups squeal like stuck pigs. As black American political economist, Thomas Sowell reminds us: “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.’
I will leave it to readers to determine whether New Zealand is a racist country, and if so, in whose favour this racism operates.
Yes Gary, racism is very much alive and well in NZ. Speaking as one of the second class citizens (ie non-part-maori) of NZ, every day I see my part-maori countrymen get legalised race based privileges that me and my family are not entitled to because of our skin colour/blood lines. My children are not allowed to apply for many scholarships because these handouts are only for part maori. How do you think that makes us feel? Second class? Inferior? Unworthy? Victims of racism? All of the above. Shame on anybody approving of such blatant racism especially the ones who reap the benefits. Are you one of them Gary?
Good to see how many people are really interested in our true history, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent – Not!
Still the more you talk about the treaty the more powerful it becomes for part-Maori to use when it had in fact served its purpose by 21 May 1840,when New Zealand came under the dependency of New South Wales with tangata Maori being given the same rights as the people of England. The Royal Charter separating NZ form NSW on the 3 May 1841 and we became an independent British Colony, but no, continue to give the Treaty the recognition it does not deserve and the Royal Charter no recognition at all. Well done sheeple, part-Maori win again!
I once applied for the Masters in Teaching and Learning programme in Wellington. I think student teachers these days are treated with very little respect. I could understand why they may choose someone with more life experience for training college over me, but the rejection letter they sent me defied belief – they were supposed to let us know in the week before Christmas, and they only sent out the rejection letters 2 weeks in to January. The rejection letter I got sent was particularly disgusting in terms of word choices, and being someone who has wanted to teach since 5th form, couldn’t understand why someone would say anything of the sort about me. Having read this, I can see why.
Em, could you be a bit more specific? Would I be right in thinking you were rejected for failing to parrot the (politically) correct propaganda?
This is totally true. In 2004 I applied, and was accepted for, the 1-year teacher training at Northcote AUT. I was so alarmed by the nature of the questions in the interview process that I declined the offer. The questions were totally in line with this blog.
One I particularly remember was: “how would you treat a Maori child who was having trouble in Maths?”. I said, “a bit of 1-on-1 to bring him/her up to speed, just as for any child in this position”. “Oh no” the two middle-aged white women interviewers replied, and trotted out how I had to be culturally sensitive etc etc. Then I noticed how much “Treaty of Waitangi” study would be in my curriculum. I was training to be a secondary Maths and Physics teacher for heaven’s sake!
Given the Nats record since 2008, could a Labour Govt be even more PC than them or less? Or does this go on with the tacit blessing of every Govt?
Thanks for that Chris. Good evidence.