One more
recent example is the Hapsburg Austrian Hungarian empire which spread through
much of Europe before their end after WW1.
The German Czech assimilation in an area known as Budweis (beer drinkers
will recognize the name) is a case in point. The German/Austrian influence in
Budweis became accepted and all lived in relative harmony for centuries. The
Hapsburg influence soon became the dominant culture and remained so for around
200 years. The country became bi-lingual and intermarriage was common
place. That remained the case until a
small bunch of academics wanted to right the wrongs of a couple of centuries
ago. (Auckland University had not been invented at that time so cannot be
blamed) The academics' ideas received some oxygen so street names were changed.
Even music received ethnic quotas. One assumes that even Beethoven’s music was
replaced by more ‘talented’ local musicians.
All of which I hope is starting to sound familiar as our country’s name of New Zealand is slowly but surely being replaced by a North Island word which I refuse to use.
I would
appreciate someone explaining to me why 40,000 people have crossed the English
Channel from France to England this past year, risking their lives and the
lives of their children to claim refuge in Britain. In other words, they
voluntarily seek colonisation.
They come
from Afghanistan, India, Iran and Pakistan, (ODT 2-12.22) desperately seeking
the English way of life within a legal and cultural system. Why then do some
within Maoridom (Labour’s Maori caucus) continually disparage the success of
“their people” who embrace a different UK type culture yet thrive under that
culture. The Nanaia Mahutas and Willie Jacksons of this world condemn the very
system so many unfortunates throughout the world are desperate to embrace here
in NZ and in the UK.
We
constantly read and hear of the negative impacts of colonisation on the Maori
citizens of this country. These impacts include a loss of a culture which once solved
disputes with neighbouring tribes by murdering each other. Do we call them
bikie gangs these days?
What
happened during the so-called colonisation of New Zealand is no different from
what has happened to virtually every other country throughout the world.
Indeed, did not the Romans once colonise England? It would be nice to hear - just
once in a while - all of the positive aspects of colonisation from Maori
leaders.
Colonisation
brought with it enormous opportunity in every aspect of life but especially in
the sporting arenas such as rugby - developed on the playing fields of England.
We don’t hear criticism of the achievements of the NZ women’s rugby team at the
recent world cup as simply being another example of colonisation and
exploitation of those women with Maori or Pacifica genealogy. The current prime
minister needs to point out other countries with co-governance (based on race)
which show us all the way forward.
The
American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox penned these words around 1903 when sailing
ships still sailed the oceans of the world:
One ship drives to the east - another to the west
By the self-same wind that blows
It is not the gale but the set of your sail
The determines the direction you go.
The Labour
government - under the direction of the Maori caucus - is set to wreck this
country on the unforgiving and shallow rocks of division.
Sadly, I
don’t see National changing anything much, should they form a government next
year.
Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.
5 comments:
The word Gerry refuses to write no doubt is Aotearoa, which means simply a "long white cloud", as was told to me by an elderly Maori gentleman some 50 years ago, and a poet (Stevenson Percy Smith?) put "The Land Of" in front of it. In my writings I have removed the land of and replaced them with "Up In The" because that is where the country is now. It is no longer on a firm footing. New Zealand is no longer a land on one people. The Maori people are fine, it is a minor percentage of them who think we owe them everything and they include certain university lecturers, certain members of the judiciary, and (believe it or not) parliamentarians! I call them "triballistics". They are tribal in their attitude, and they go ballistic when they don't get what they want. It is time to get rid of both Labour and National. They are both passed their us by dates!
Kevan
That's why they are desperate to erase the true history of NZ, which accurately depicts Maori as exactly the same as all tribal societies, with all the violence and nefarious practices that go with them.
That would wreck their claims of being ruined by colonisation.
In truth, colonisation probably saved Maori from a long slow death spiral.
It will possibly need a partial return to tribalism, this time with several other tribes who are likely far better equipped to cope when things go downhill. Sad, but that's the history of the world countless times over.
I agree with Gerry. National will be next to useless. A woke caretaker government which will hold the reins until the real racists get back into power.
I am generally a National supporter but am starting to agree that a National led government will not do anything to stop the division that is ruining our country. I think that an Act led government might be the ones to right the ship.
First we must accept that colonisation is traumatic to those colonised. It is totally understandable that the Maori are looking at their history with great sadness and, in some case, deep anger at what happened.
Secondly we must accept that colonisation was inevitable as it was a global revolution where mainly European countries stormed around the world into new lands. New Zealand was always going to be colonised and given the lessons of history, the Maori were lucky New Zealand was colonised by the english.
Thirdly the three greatest impacts from colonisation are loss of lands, loss of culture and collapse of population. They are all related. When the british settlers started arriving in the 1820s, Maori population was only 80,000 [official figures]. The country was considered 'empty'. The Maori popluation collapsed to 20,000 by 1870s due to disease which is a classic colonisation impact, making the country more 'empty' yet Europeans were 800,000 by this time. Given the small population, one can see the loss of culture.
Colonisation was inevitable. Population collapse through disease was inevitable. And settlers moved into an empty country. These are the truths and how they can be told any differently is untruthful.
I have some agreement with the last comment but I want to add that a mingling of human beings has been in many ways beneficial- call it colonization or not .500 years in isolation had not been entirely beneficial for Maori .They were not progressing culturally or materially and their inter-tribal warfare was horrendous- leave aside the dehumanisation of cannibalism. I think is quite likely they could have died out. Yes I understand they suffered the humiliation of being the lesser- in numbers , skills , material goods, knowledge- and I contend tha.t is this awareness of being less that drives some still - the less intelligent and thoughtful .We all need to accept we are one people.
Post a Comment