Sunday, May 23, 2021

John Robinson: New Zealand apartheid

Beware: read with care; this article has been judged not fit to publish by the management of the New Zealand Herald, when overturning the decision of the Editor of the Northland Age to put it in the paper that he (supposedly) edits.

Acceptance of New Zealand law demands a belief in race, together with a willingness to accept apartheid with separation into members of “the Maori race” and other New Zealanders.  Much of New Zealand’s law and system of government are based on that division.

This is clearly and unequivocally stated, in the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1974, where a Maori is defined as “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person”.

Based on that definition, we have separation into two different peoples – with special seats in Parliament, special wards in much local Government, separate rights such as access to the Waitangi Tribunal, and much more.  We are two people.

That definition makes no sense unless those who wrote it, and those who follow it, believe in the existence of the Maori race.  That is, a belief, as members of a cult, in the outmoded and disgraceful concept of race and racial separation which is written into law.  There can be no clearer definition of national racism, with the resulting apartheid in treatment and rights. 

At times of crisis (bombing, pandemic), the Prime Minister has proclaimed, with a straight face, “we are one people”, “we are all in this together”.  What a massive contradiction!  In this topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass land, those who have called for equality as truly one people have been labelled ‘racist’ – an evident contradiction fundamental to this distorted ideology of race.  But that belief – that racism is needed to overcome racism – is so deeply ensconced that no logical argument or set of facts moves supporters of difference and the Treaty industry away from their dogma.

What then of the Treaty of Waitangi? 

First, it must be said, if some national document or custom says we are two races and proclaims racism, it must be repudiated.  No nation should accept inherited racism.  That was not so in South Africa, where apartheid was faced and overcome.  Nor in the USA where much progress has been made, and is continuing, with an ongoing call for equality – not separate rights.

The Treaty of Waitangi presents no such problem; it is a strong, unequivocal statement of equal rights, of one people, all as British subjects.  There is no separation in the Treaty, no race.  Indeed, there is no ‘Maori’.  Rather there is reference to ‘maori’, the common people, all of us.

One positive step would be to turn away from the recent rewriting of the Treaty, back to the original and our common citizenship in a unified nation.  And then to work through the unravelling of apartheid, ending separate Maori seats in Parliament and separate wards in local government, closing the Waitangi Tribunal (which after 42 increasingly disruptive years is well past its used-by date), and removing race-based laws. 

In parallel, historical writings and education must be freed from the straightjacket of distorted politically-directed accounts, so that we can all see the glorious story of the meeting of peoples, with successes to celebrate as well as conflicts to remember (among Maori before 1840 and between different movements after the formation of the nation).

Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori.  His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books.


DeeM said...

Eloquently put and a clear demonstration of how New Zealand has been on a road to separatism for about the last 50 years.
Both Labour and National have fostered this racial segregation by passing legislation, establishing tribunals and signing declarations which have enshrined it in law and custom. While at the same time, hypocritically denouncing other countries for practising the same thing.
"Progress" has been in fits and starts but we now finally have a government which is champing at the bit to go all the way.
Our two main parties have a lot to answer for but so do we as voters. In most cases, our present government excepted, they would have campaigned on these issues and the public supported them.
NZ now has to decide if it has made a massive mistake and unleashed a two-headed monster that will turn on itself.
Let's hope that sense and realism prevail and the public finally see what comes of positively discriminating by race, instead of acting in the best interests of ALL New Zealanders.

Anonymous said...

Maori claim to be indigenous and New Zealand signed up to this with the United Nations. The only authority on the English language, however, is the Oxford English Dictionary published by the Oxford University Press. This authority states that "indigenous" means "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native." Such as ‘the indigenous peoples of Siberia’.

Maori, by there own, rightly, proclaimed abilities of seamanship and navigation, arrived in New Zealand as immigrants. They are not indigenous no matter what the UN, Maori or the Labour Party state.

Tony Fellingham said...

The validity of the largesse of successive governments relating to treaty claims of part-Maori groups is highly questionable.
Many claimants have greater European bloodlines than Maori, some of whom may only have 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 or even as low as 1/64 Maori blood,

yet they still claim to be Maori for the benefit of financial advantage.

It means their own forefathers bear little or no responsibility for the ills that they allegedly experience today.

This is a massive deception and fraud on the public purse.

A more honest and equitable solution would be for all recipients of government funding to be required to undergo DNA testing to prove their degree of Maori-ness.

That would allow any potential funding calculations to reflect that percentage.

As a comparison, the differences in apparent motivation and hence benefits between Maori and American Indian seem to be immense.

Whereas Native Americans need at least 1/4 of their DNA to qualify for benefits, to self-identify as Maori requires zero.

The New Zealand statute definition of Māori is broad and inclusive,

which will allow anyone to register as Māori if they identify as being Māori or a descendant, which is not necessarily by DNA.

Tony from Tauranga

Don said...

Look further in the Oxford Dictionary anonymous and you will find the word "aborigine" defined as "being in occupation of the land at the time of the arrival of settlers." So we need to swap terms with our Aussie cousins and call Maori "aborigine" whereas their so-called Aboriginals are truly indigenous having occupied their lands for tens of thousands of years unlike Maori who have been here not much more than one thousand years.

Ian McGimpsey said...

What is up at Tross Publishing? Their website is not accessible??