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.
5 comments:
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.
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.
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
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.
What is up at Tross Publishing? Their website www.trosspublishing.co.nz is not accessible??
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.