What is New Zealand? This is a country that has defined itself out of existence. It is no longer one sovereign nation. Instead, sovereignty rests with many race-based hapu and iwi scattered across the country, ruled by unexplained tikanga based on the ways of a past warring tribal society.
Who are these special ones who hold the sovereignty of our
lands? This is the Maori, people whose
identity is fundamental to government and laws.
The definition of Maori is then basic to any understanding of the
country. Here is, written into law in
1974.
“A Maori is a person of the Maori race: and includes any
descendant of such a person.”[1]
Here there is a Maori race. There is no thing as a race, yet
here it is written into law. So, what is
this? It is a race consisting of Maori. We are none the wiser – keeping in mind that
key words in legislation and in international treaties must have a clear,
well-defined meaning, leaving no doubt of what is implied. We are back where we started, and can go on
round in circles as long as we like, but will never get anywhere in an effort
to find a clear definition of ‘Maori’ in our law. This is nonsense, but it is the basis of much
New Zealand law, and of increasingly divisions in many spheres of government.
Despite the lack of any clarity on the meaning of ‘Maori’,
the above definition insists on the inclusion of all who have any degree of
ancestry. This is a wider definition of
racial identity than those of apartheid South Africa (which referred to the
full blooded as black, with those of mixed ethnicity defined as coloured), Nazi
Germany (at first requiring half or more ethnicity for a Jew), being that of the
‘Jim Crow laws’ re-establishing racial segregation in the American South.[2] Here is the affirmation of a very wide
definition of race as the basis of a national ideology, to be written into all
law.
In practice these Maori are descendants of some Polynesians
who came in the 13th century (including now anyone with any degree
of such ancestry, no matter how small). Research
in the early twentieth century by the distinguished Maori scholar (doctor, military leader, health
administrator, politician, anthropologist, and museum director) Sir
Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa)
identified three series of migrations to New Zealand; Buck referred to
the first group as the ‘tangata whenua’. Each new influx of settlers found numerous
people living here; many were killed so that the newcomers could possess the
land, often in wars of extermination, resulting in the practical extinction of
the men, while the women and children were absorbed by the conquerors. The first to come, according to Buck, was around
the 9th century; later research has suggested a much earlier date
for first human settlement. The canoes
bringing the ancestors to today’s Maori were probably the third of these
migrations.[3]
But all reports of settlers preceding the Maori have been deleted
from history, with an insistence that they only are the first people, tangata
whenua’, and the ‘indigenous’ people.
That assumption is then held to support a claim that they are a special
race, demanding higher status and better treatment.
Such division by ancestry or first settlement, with
race-based privileges, has been universally condemned. This is made clear in the
introduction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, which includes a powerful rebuttal of inherent
differences between peoples.[4]
“Affirming further that all doctrines,
policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or
individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or
cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally
condemnable and socially unjust.”
This statement of a condemnation of superior status based on
national origin or ethnic difference and refutes the many claims of that
Declaration which demand special race-based rights for the (undefined)
indigenous people. Nonsense is not
unique to New Zealand.
There is no such thing as race. Humans cannot be, and should not be, divided by race. To do so is to reverse the struggle over past centuries in opposition to division by race and the subsequent racism, a struggle that brought equality to New Zealand when this nation was founded.
*This is the first of four short articles noting the nonsense
that is driving New Zealand ever further into apartheid, with different
treatment based on race and two race based governments and sets of law. Only a ship of fools would sit back and allow
this happen.
[1] Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974
[2] Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty?
Tross Publishing, page 41
[3]
Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1938. Vikings of the sunrise. Whitcombe and
Tombs, republished as Vikings of the Pacific in 1959 by University of
Chicago; Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1949. The
coming of the Maori. Reprinted 1982,
Whitcoulls Ltd.; and Robinson J 2020. Unrestrained
slaughter, the Maori musket wars 1800-1840 Tross Publishing, page 9
[4]
United Nations 2007. United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
8 comments:
The eight Acts over the years to define, “Who is a Maori”.
Note that the previous definition of Maori as an “Aboriginal Native/Inhabitant” of New Zealand was changed in the 1909 Native Lands Act, when the Maori definition morphed into a “Race”.
1. The Native Lands Act of 1865 defined a Maori as, "an Aboriginal Native and shall include all half castes and their descendants by Natives".
2. The Qualification of Electors Act 1879 defined a Maori as, "an Aboriginal inhabitant of New Zealand and includes any half caste living as a member of a native tribe according to their customs and usages and any descendants of such a half caste by a Maori woman.
3. The Electoral Act 1893 defined a Maori as, "an Aboriginal inhabitant of New Zealand and includes half castes and their descendants by natives".
4. The Native Land Court Act 1894 defines a Maori as, "an Aboriginal native of New Zealand and includes half castes and their descendants".
5. The Native Land Acts 1909 defines a Maori as, "a person belonging to the Aboriginal race of New Zealand and includes a half caste and a person intermediate in blood between half caste and a person of pure descent from that race".
6. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 defines a Maori as, "a person of the Maori race of New Zealand and includes any descendant of such a person".
7. The Electoral Amendment Act 1975 defines a Maori as, "a person of the Maori race and includes any descendant of such a person who elects to be considered a Maori for the purposes of the Electoral Act".
8. The 1975 Waitangi Tribunal Act defines a Maori as, “a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person.
You can consider yourself 'Maori' if your great grandmother was Maori. So 1/8 of your genes that are Maori count for more than the 7/8 of your genes that are non-Maori. This would have to be racism, so the law is racist.
>"There is no thing as a race, yet here it is written into law."
Actually, races are very real. In modern biology we tend to focus on gene pools rather than on species, as it is the gene pool that is the unit of evolutionary change. The fact that DNA profiles can be used to identify someone's racial background suggests that race is an objective rather than subjective entity, albeit, as one commentator I came across put it, "fuzzy around the edges". Note that there are no such things as 'the White race' or 'the Black race' as these are rather sweeping and not at all scientific descriptors. I am myself a member of the Germanic race. That sets me apart from other 'White' races. Now if you want to read some dire conspiracy theory pertaining to a 'master race' into that, that's your problem, not mine. When asked to identify myself, I say that I am a Germanic man. That is no more 'racist' than identifying as a Han Chinese woman. Let's get over this hang-up about race that has been foisted upon us by marxofascist ideologues!
Again one must ask: will hard and irrefutable facts carry any - or enough - weight in the approaching debate on Treaty principles?
What you say John is quite accurate and logical, so one has to wonder about the mentality of our politicians. Trying to tiptoe round the Treaty, and pandering to so-called Māori, who will never be satisfied, has to stop for the good of the country.
I was born in Australia, but have lived all my adult life in New Zealand.
I identify as a New Zealander.
Racially, I am a member of the Human Race.
Regarding claims of being indigenous:-
Maori are NOT indigenous to this country (New Zealand).
They arrived here about 600 years ago, having travelled from the Pacific Islands in canoes. The Maori still have a plaque in northland celebrating their “homeland” of Hawaiki.
Their current DNA shows, as does historical research, that they were indigenous to Taiwan, and travelled from there down thousands of years ago through Melanesia to eventually settle in (colonize) the Pacific Islands in Polynesia.
It was from there, after many centuries, various tribes travelled (once again) to this country, bringing with them the Polynesian rat and the South American Kumara and moved here slaughtering ,raping and cannibalizing the current occupants (Moriori
What you are, is old, out of touch, and totally irrelevant. Young NZ is moving on in a version of race relations and diversity that is beyond your comprehension. So by all means waste your remaining time writing this stuff. Only more old and irrelevant people will see it - a commentary going nowhere and influencing nothing.
Looks like we've got a troll here, folks......
Post a Comment