Failing the commonsense test: Concepts of equity in 1840 tribal Māori and fake treaty "principles" today.
Equity means equality of outcome. It’s a key demand of Māori supremacists. They say our government’s obligation to provide equality of outcomes arises directly from the “principles” created when their ancestors signed the Treaty of Waitangi 181 years ago.
They are more opaque when defining whether that equality of outcome should be applied on a tribal basis, or on an individual basis. Tribal equity and individual equity are two very different beasts.
On 6 August this year Michelle Mako, the “Director of Equity” at Te Aho o Te Kahu (literally meaning “To Be the Binding Thread of the Cloak” but somehow translating to “The Cancer Control Agency of New Zealand”), wrote a blog titled “In the interest of equity: Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.
Despite the New Zealand Health Equity Explorer stating that “Health depends on many things, and “equal” health is hard to achieve.” (see my 20 July article “Gout and the Treaty driven misrepresentation of health equity statistics”) Mako stubbornly insists that “inequities in health are avoidable”
She then goes on to state that the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi include the “guarantees” of:
“Equity – the right of Māori to receive equitable … outcomes from health care services.”
“Active protection – ensuring that “actions are taken to achieve health equity”
She uses the confected Treaty of Waitangi “principles” as faux-legal leverage to demand New Zealanders acquiesce to pouring ever increasing amounts of money into Māori.
In the same way that the idea that the British Crown signed up for a “partnership” with Māori fails the commonsense test, so too does the idea that the 1840 Chiefs who signed the Treaty believed they were agreeing to equality of outcomes for all.
The reason the concept of equity resonates with people in the West today is because it accords with our desires for everyone to be treated fairly and equally. Unfortunately though, most people are unaware that today’s concept of “Equity” spawned from a sinister progenitor and its proponents have no interest in fairness or in equality.
We are naturally cynical when someone professes a belief in a virtue but then fails to put that belief into practice in their own life. The idea of judging a person by their actions rather than by their words has longstanding merit for this reason.
It fails the commonsense test that 1840 tribal Māori signed up to equality of outcomes for all via the Treaty, but that the Crown may have done so, beggars belief.
These facts alone should see the Treaty gravy train consigned to the wreckers’ yard.
It takes only the most cursory examination of Māori practices in 1840 to see that the concept of equity had no place in their own tribal or intertribal structures and this tribal based inequity remains in Māori structures to this day.
Futhermore, the concepts of Equity and Utu are totally incompatible.
Utu is about always weighting the ledger to your advantage.
I recently observed a list of Kaupapa Māori practices, compiled for an article on Māori health. One of these was that:
- Māori must not trample over the mana of other people. (Mana, in Māori, encompasses power, prestige and status.)
Two associated practices were that:
- Māori must be cautious, and
- Māori must not flaunt their knowledge.
If you cannot challenge the power and prestige of the tribal elites, and you must show caution, and not flaunt your knowledge, how can you ever achieve equity from within those structures?
Why should Māori demand all other New Zealanders provide them with the means to achieve equal outcomes, without first redistributing their own wealth equally to the individuals in their tribes – to show their own, unequivocal commitment to equity?
New Zealanders must stand up and vote to disengage immediately from the nonsense idea that the Treaty of Waitangi’s signing brought into existence any legal obligation or moral imperative for our government to guarantee equality of outcome in any sphere of government control.
If the Treaty of Waitangi does in fact guarantee “equality of outcome” in health for every individual then it surely also guarantees “equality of outcome” for every one of us with regard to ownership of and access to all areas of our beautiful country and to all of its treasures.
The lie that equality of outcome is a genuinely sought after moral good on the part of either our government or of the Māori tribal elites, is exposed by the fact that only Māori are allowed the freedom to “exercise Māori customary rights” to hunt (Red deer imported from Britain and Captain Cooker pigs??) in this lockdown, and it is blown out of the water by the idea that Māori tribes believe they should own our seabed and foreshore, and that they should control New Zealand’s water.
Where is the equity in that?
With apologies to those keen readers of my rather lengthy post from the 20th of August (Nine ways to disengage from the Woke praxis of Critical Race Theorists in New Zealand), and thanking you all for your encouragement (As Allan said “Please SHARE this article and video with all contacts you have”), I am reposting here the link to the 17 minute Christopher Rufo video on What Critical Race Theory Has Wrought. This is an American production but it is alarmingly translatable to New Zealand.
It’s a must watch.
Effi Lincoln is a sixth generation New Zealander. Her roots are sunk deep in the South Island’s soil. Her heart beats in its beaches and its bush. Her eye is firmly on its now seriously threatened future as a fair and free place for her children, and her children’s children, to thrive.
A great read Effi, and I fully agree, I watched the video you suggested in this artical on "The Critical Race Theory". It is very scary to see it being implemented here at every level in New Zealand by comrade Ardern and her cohorts. Like you said a must watch, I have already sent it to like minded people, the interesting part of the video for me was, what you can do and how to counteract it !!
Interesting Youtube and yes there are many comparisons to what is being driven by our Government, without mandate, reason or truth.
Thanks for this excellent reasoning and insightful argument. Quite right, even the latter-day inventors of treaty 'principles' couldn't redefine equity as meaning inequity for non-Maori (though no doubt they tried) regarding such matters as access to water and air, or the proportion of state welfare and other taxpayer money they receive per person. And it's quite right that inter- (or intra-) tribal policies appeared to show and continue to show little interest in equity among their own. Both royal and chiefly governance involved inherited or assigned privilege and inequality across the societies, so it's inconceivable that any of the parties signing the Treaty had an expectation about social equity beyond what the Treaty stated, i.e. that Maori would have all the rights and privileges of British subjects. In fact, those rights privileges were quite limited and certainly didn't include equality of outcomes, nor even of opportunity. Modern New Zealand society has long supported the principle of equality of opportunity and that probably remains a laudable and socially beneficial quest. However, pursuit of equality of outcome will inevitably require inequality of opportunity and therefore increased social resentment and division.
Presumably equity could also be achieved by shortening the average lifespan of pakeha.
It would be certainly be cheaper.
Equality of outcome - how do you measure that exactly?
Perhaps everyone should have...the same income; the same total wealth (goodbye property and asset ownership); the same job satisfaction and opportunity (forget CVs and interviews - you will be appointed when it's your turn); the same type of house; the same number of holidays each year (at the state run holiday camp!); the same life expectancy (scrap the end-of-life bill)?
There are so many things that determine equality of outcome. There was a movement, Communism, that had a go at it last century but it proved to be an abysmal failure. Even so-called modern day communist countries, like China, operate their economies on capitalist principles because they know equality of outcomes don't work.
One thing's for certain, you can't have equality of outcome in a real democracy because that means curtailing or removing at least half the population's basic rights and freedoms so that they can be made just as equal as the other half. And why would you want to? In a real democracy, which uses the meritocracy principle, the most able people should be selected for the job which means you get the best outcome across the economy, leading to a more efficient, productive and wealthier country from which all citizens benefit.
But our current government isn't really interested in equality of outcomes, no matter how much it bangs on about it. The He Puapua report, and the parts of it already actioned, clearly demonstrate that this is the last thing our ideological, neo-marxist leaders want. They favour one group only and want it to have far more than its fair share. More power, rights, privileges, land, wealth, water, etc...than anyone else.
That's inequality of outcomes for 85% of the population.
Today we learn Maori and Pacifica are to be given millions of extra funding to cope with Covid problems. Does the virus differentiate and select the chosen 15% for harsher treatment? We are all in the same boat but some seem to be travelling first class while the 85% languish in steerage,
Years ago, and of course in the movies , a chief of a tribe ,gets challenged by another member and the challenger manages to win , then the challenger BECOMES chief . Now that the country is skidding back towards tribalism , and there is heaps of competition between tribes,iwis etc can we expect mercenaries to be hired to take out unpopular chiefs ? It used to be legal , and will a tribal parliament carry out those cultural laws , as defined by kupe ? Or will colonists law supercede ? So many tribal elitists (and leftist followers ) blame colonists for ALL their problems associated with health (earlier deaths than other groups) education , lack of business acumen , low employment status etc etc . Going back to the earlier laws , may well suit some tribal members who feel ignored by their elders and many many more who never see any benefits from multi million dollar incomes attributed to the iwi and they also never seemed to get asked to vote on the actions of the elders .
Thank you for this article and video link. Will share them both.
As for equity, I agree with DeeM. Having lived in a communist country, the equity looked exactly as described above: the nightmare.
As for CRT, it is important for people to be able to recognize it because the language they use is deceiving,their arguments seem powerful, the whole statements are like from different realm so that the common reader or listener just cannot fully understand the underlying meaning. This fact is strengthened by using long Maori words and phrases here in NZ. The words and phrases you even are not expected to fully understand if you don't have enough pigment or better to say have not the right genealogy.
So one of the ways how to deal with it is to reveal it and name it openly. E.g. when you hear or read anyone talking about white privileges, equity of outcomes, colonialism, decolonising etc. plus here in NZ about Treaty partnership and principles, we should openly say that these are just the ideological weapons of CRT which is the child of Marxism and turn the debate to consequences which are destroying capitalism and democracy and challenge them to formulate and show the better system.
We should always point to the true roots of problems, e.g. to dysfunctional families, addiction, mental health etc. when debating issues like health, poverty etc. Thanks to Lindsay Mitchell we have the statistics.
And it is also important to insist at every occasion that this or that particular so called Maori virtue is a common human virtue and to show and emphasize all that people of NZ have achieved together as New Zealanders.
We should maintain the colourblind attitude and policy as the best and most just and refuse biculturalism and even multiculturalism if they cross the boundary of one nation under one law
and insist that each individual should be responsible for his or her acts onnly and refuse any smallest sign of collective guilt.
Alexandra Corbett Dekanova.
Thanks for assuring me that I am not alone. I applaud your argument but plead for one or more political parties with sufficient clout to proclaim from the rooftops that they wi end this destructive lunacy
Post a Comment