Well, if people did think that, they’d be half right but regarding the lessons to be learned, I am actually mainly referring to Saturday’s referendum on the “Voice “ in Australia that enables me to make some really startling observations, drawing comparisons with our closest neighbour that are very revealing.
Let’s be clear! Both elections were about race - or ethnic heritage if you want to be less precise.
Both Governments were attempting to or had temporarily succeeded in dividing their respective populations based solely on the colour of your skin.
And both were prepared to ignore the need for proof of ancestry or in New Zealand’s case, the fact that the current population mix are all descendants of immigrants - the only difference being that one small group of people arrived here about 1000 years before the rest of us.
In Australia, the Aboriginal’s documented heritage provides undisputed proof that they can claim to be Tangata Whenua.
Here in New Zealand, the only people who can legitimately claim to have been here first are the Morioris, who were supposedly forced to flee to the Chatham Islands in an attempt to escape the marauding Maori tribes prior to the Musket wars here on the mainland. Unfortunately, that local migration only temporarily saved them from the slaughter that was to become their fate..
So, having disposed of the various claims to legitimacy, it is important to examine why there is this sudden urge to divide both countries on the basis of ethnic heritage. And why have the respective populations responded in similar fashion to reject these attempts to enshrine in legislation privileges that will only ensure the division continues until a revolt of unimaginable proportions returns us to the way we have been for the last 283 years - dual heritage but one people.
The main reason Kiwis overwhelmingly voted to overturn the 2020 emphatic election result is because they felt betrayed into believing their Government was intent on ensuring minorities were treated with respect but not in the disproportionate and privileged fashion exposed in the clandestine He Puapua report.
I contend that our election and the reaction of the majority of voters was one of anger at being betrayed rather than a response to the financial pressures associated with modern daily living.
Of course, inflationary pressures added to the mix of discontent but you can’t expect to see such a monumental change in voting preference is such a short time based solely on a single issue which just happens to be, for some, one that is always there.
No, I believe that the responses in both countries was to emphatically reject the notion that the majority are inherently racist and there is a need to promote that image to the world as if we need to be cleansed of this cancer that prevents the folk who have been here the longest from reaching their full potential.
As Jacinta Price, one of the aboriginal leaders of the “No” vote which was successful in all Australian states and across the nation in the general vote, said during the campaign - “that notion is simply a false interpretation of modern Australian society. That is not who we are!” - a powerful message in anyone’s language.
Back here at home the message to our government was the same - we are not a racist people and it is an affront to every decent New Zealander by suggesting that we are.
Our record of peaceful coexistence between people of different ethnic origin is second to none in a world aflame with tribal warfare.
We should be proud of our history, including our attempts at reconciliation and compensation for misdeeds perpetrated by our colonial ancestors - although it is somewhat ironic that not all groups have been forced to atone for those acts of barbarism. I suspect that the reason racism claims don’t stick here is not only because, in most cases, it is a figment of radical imagination, but because those who promote this lie want to ignore the facts surrounding their own tribal history which includes genocidal acts that make the Hamas atrocities seem like a Sunday stroll in comparison.
It would be interesting to know how the world might have responded if our mass tribal murders had occurred yesterday.
Fortunately, those ancestral warlords are not representative of modern Maori who are, because of the beneficial aspects of colonialism, a much more self assured and competent members of our society - equal in every sense of the word.
Long may it continue but we need to learn from these two timely votes that treachery and mistaken attempts to divide are not part of who we are.
Don’t even think about it ever again.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
4 comments:
As always Clive, you present the reality. I hope you copy your succinct message to Christopher Luxon, as he seems incapable of accepting reality.
In a nutshell, the public was fed up with maorification and in voting seized the unique opportunity granted them to express their discontent without fear of incurring cancellation.
Clive you should not perpetuate the myth of “…misdeeds perpetrated by our colonial ancestors”. Colonisation was the best thing that happened to Maori who were, prior to the arrival of the Europeans, a Stone Age people. Their lands were not stolen, they were purchased in exchange for much sought after blankets, tools, guns, clothing etc. Maori culture and language was not crushed by the Europeans but simply superseded by a more advanced culture. The only misdeeds that occurred was an uprising in 1860 by rebellious Maori groups who committed what we call treason, against a legitimate government.
I always try to tell it like it is Reggie.
I see no point in arguing about events l can’t prove down to the most common detail
So, my interpretation of misdeeds by our colonial ancestors is pretty much limited to the illegal confiscation of land as in the case immediately after the Parihaka siege. There were other examples of this brutal assault on tribes that offered no resistance and we need to own up to the facts.
Having researched what happened at that time, land was definitely taken as punishment for a relatively peaceful protest.
But worse was to come with the transfer of many young Maoris against their will down to Otago where they were treated virtually as slaves building roads etc. I reckon those “misdeeds” - had they been perpetrated by Maori, would have been called “ atrocities” by the Crown.
However, one of my concerns related to our incoming Government is that we have yet to see the fulfilment of promises made to rewrite the pre - colonial History with an emphasis on the real atrocities and genocidal acts committed on their own people by the marauding tribes during the Musket Wars. Future generations need to be told the truth - warts and all. This current government’s history curriculum is just a bunch of lies and is a betrayal of the mandate given to them to govern with integrity.
I suppose it is unfair to be asking for results before the Government is sworn in but there is a gut feeling that some of the promises made will, over time, fall into the too hard basket as they grapple with the real issues of the day. It happens.
I will be the first person to apologise for ever having doubted them if some time during their first term, l am proved wrong.
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.