In doing so he compares what is happening in New Zealand now with what happened in the USA between the abolitionists in the north and the slaveholding states of the south.
. . . The key historical question arising from this comparison is: which of the opposing sides in the present conflict between “New Zealand” and “Aotearoa” represents the North, and which the South? The answer is far from straightforward.
Superficially, it is the promoters of decolonisation and indigenisation who most resemble the Northern abolitionists. Certainly, in their moral certainty, dogmatism, and unwillingness to compromise, the Decolonisers and the Abolitionists would appear to be cut from identical cloth. Brought together by a time machine, one can easily imagine their respective leaders, so alike in their political style, getting along famously.
By the same token, the defenders of Colour-Blind New Zealand, in their reverence for tradition and their deep nostalgia for the political certainties of the past, would appear to be a more than passable match for the political forces that gave birth to the Confederate States of America in 1861.
These correspondences are, however, more apparent than real. From a strictly ideological standpoint, it is the Decolonisers who match most closely the racially-obsessed identarian radicals who rampaged through the streets of the South in 1860-61, demanding secession and violently admonishing all those suspected of harbouring Northern sympathies. Likewise, it is the Indigenisers who preach a racially-bifurcated state in which the ethnic origin of the citizen is the most crucial determinant of his or her political rights and duties.
Certainly, in this country, the loudest clamour and the direst threats are directed at those who argue that New Zealand must remain a democratic state in which all citizens enjoy equal rights, irrespective of wealth, gender, or ethnic origin, and in which the property rights of all citizens are safeguarded by the Rule of Law.
These threats escalated alarmingly following the election of what soon became the National-Act-NZ First Coalition Government. Like the election of Lincoln in 1860, the success of New Zealand’s conservative parties in the 2023 general election was construed by the Decolonisers and Indigenisers as a potentially fatal blow to any hope of sustaining and extending the gains made under the sympathetic, radical, and identity-driven Labour Government of 2020-23.
Just as occurred throughout the South in November and December of 1860, the fire-eating partisans of “Aotearoa” lost little time in coming together to warn the incoming government that its political programme was unreasonable, unacceptable, and “racist”; and that any attempt to realise it in legislation would be met with massive resistance – up to and including civil war.
The profoundly undemocratic nature of the fire-eaters’ opposition was illustrated by their vehement objections to the Act Party’s policy of holding a binding referendum to entrench, or not, the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi. Like the citizens of South Carolina, the first state to secede, the only votes they are willing to recognise are their own. . .
There’s a word for discrimination on the basis of race. It’s apartheid and the race of those discriminating and campaigning for separatism is irrelevant and it’s wrong.
Trotter notes the parallel between judicial activism here now and the USA then.
In 2022, the New Zealand Supreme Court’s adjudication of the Peter Ellis Case would add a novel legal consideration – tikanga Māori – to the application of New Zealand Law. The Court’s constitutionally dubious decision was intended to, and did, materially advance the establishment of a bi-cultural legal system in Aotearoa. It represented an historic victory for the Decolonisers.
It may occur to some readers, that the argument put forward here resembles the celebrated Mitchell & Webb television sketch in which a worried SS officer asks his Nazi comrade-in-arms, Hans: “Are we the baddies?” It’s a great line. But, over and above the humour, the writers are making an important point. Those who devote themselves entirely to a cause are generally incapable of questioning its moral status – even when its uniforms are adorned with skulls.
Those New Zealanders who believe unquestioningly in the desirability of decolonisation and indigenisation argue passionately that they are part of the same great progressive tradition that inspired the American Abolitionists of 160 years ago. But are they?
Did the Black Abolitionist, and former slave, Frederick Douglass, embrace the racial essentialism of Moana Jackson? Or did he, rather, wage an unceasing struggle against those who insisted, to the point of unleashing a devastating civil war, that all human-beings are not created equal?
What is there that in any way advances the progressive cause about the casual repudiation of Dr Martin Luther King Jnr’s dream that: “one day my four little children will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character”?
When will the partisans of decolonisation and indigenisation finally notice the death’s head on their caps? That, driven by their political passion to atone for the sins of the colonial fathers, they are willing to subvert the Rule of Law, deny human equality, misrepresent their country’s history, and abandon its democratic system of government. Can they not see that the people they castigate as the direct ideological descendants of the slaveholding white supremacists of the antebellum South, are actually fighting for the same principles that animated and inspired the Northern Abolitionists?
Does denying human equality and rejecting the principles of colour-blind citizenship place you among the baddies? Yes, I’m afraid it does. The demon of unrest has claimed you for his own.
The racists rhetoric from the Maori Party and its supporters is a good illustration of of their insistence of race trumping the law, most recently in response to gang arrests:
Te Pāti Māori MP for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi, says today’s police-sponsored terrorism in Ōpōtiki is a continuation of the State’s predatory behaviour towards the iwi of Te Whakatōhea.
“Ōpōtiki is once again being intentionally targeted and is the direct byproduct of this Government’s ‘tough on crime’ legislative changes,” said MP for Waiariki, Rawiri Waititi.
“This predatory action only exacerbates the broken relationship between Te Whakatōhea and authorities, which has been strained for centuries, ever since the death of Rev. Carl Sylvius Völkner in 1865.
“Violating whānau in their own homes on a hunch, and then throwing our people into this racist system, will do nothing to address the systemic issues created by this and successive Governments. . .
A major police investigation targeting organised crime prevented a planned shooting at a gang tangi and the attempted murder of a rival gang member, police have revealed today.
Police also revealed they have seized illegal drugs and firearms and restrained assets worth $800,000 in an operation targeting members and associates of the Mongrel Mob Barbarian MC East Bay chapter based in Ōpōtiki. . .
When we have police combatting crime and an MP complaining about the arrest of criminals it’s not hard to work out who the goodies and baddies are.
The Mitchell and Webb clip to which her refers is this one:
Click to view
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
So, Māori gang affiliate’s masquerading as a “community leaders” push back on police tactics over Mongrel Mob raids?
“No more will we tolerate this”, they say. “We are the mana of this land”, they say.
“There was no “engagement” (code for a heads up) before the raid by the NZ Police” they say. “We will establish our own intelligence and surveillance of them”, they say.
We are a “Tiriti o Waitangi partner” to the Crown they say.
This is why this apartheid agenda has to be reversed asap. Every apartheid Act and statute since 1975, which give explicit recognition to the treaty, removed from legislation once and for all. If not, why not?
Almost comic - were it not so serious.
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.