Contrary to the false propaganda being promoted by TePati Maori and the radical idealogues on the Waitangi Tribunal supported by those who joined the Hikoi to Parliament, race relationships in this Country continues to be in pretty good shape.
I say that as a Pakeha who has spent the majority of my
working life living and working in low decile communities dominated by people
who identify as Maori.
Given the vitriol shouted by the ,
leaders of the protest movement, one would assume that they
represent a majority view of what this fuss is all about - an attempt by Right
wing politicians (Act and NZ First) to legislate away Tangata Whenua
birthright.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact David Seymour's bill is actually designed to
establish once and for all an accurate interpretation of what the Waitangi
Treaty clauses were intended to convey - especially in the eyes of those who
signed it- Paramount chiefs representing a majority of the then Maori
population and the English Chief Representative on behalf of the British Crown.
Unfortunately, the radical element claiming to represent
modern Maori are hell bent on misrepresenting those original intentions, basing
their argument on introduced "ìprinciples of the treaty" that never
were a part of the original document - instead purely a politically inspired
construct that has no basis in fact and just a radical interpretation of what
modern separatists would like it to mean.
Fortunately for those of us who live at the coalface where most
of the producers of real wealth live and peacefully coexist, these protests are
a temporary hick-up that will collapse under its own weight once everybody else
gets back to work.,
Let's hope so!
Whatever, l can assure the rest of the Country that the
reason for my confidence is based on what l have gleaned from 45 years enjoying
being part of a community that truly represents the national character.
My conversations with local Maori convinces me that their
aspirations are almost identical to our own.
They recognize that in a society offering equal
opportunities for all (actually some would say affirmative action policies
benefit low decile communities at the expense of others but are accepted as
important in order to address any imbalance where it occurs) the responsibility
for taking advantage of those opportunities rests with them alone.
So, my New Years resolution is for all of us to take a step
back and acknowledge how lucky we are to live in a country that, for the most
part treats everybody the same.
Inherited privilege is no longer a factor in determining who
gets what.
Generally speaking achievement is based solely on hard work
and a commitment to those who can't do it for themselves.
That sounds like a truly egalitarian society to me and if we
achieve it, we will be the first to do so. Everybody else is light years
behind.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
20 comments:
"My conversations with local Maori convinces me that their aspirations are almost identical to our own".
Look at what they do, not what they say.
In dealing with the locals I trust Clive bears in mind that conning pakeha has been a mana gaining exercise since first contact.
"My conversations with local Maori convinces me that their aspirations are almost identical to our own"
It's the way we go about achieving those aspirations that makes the difference Clive.
Can I add ( to the posted comment Anon @1:44 PM) - the following .
" Do as I say, NOT what I do ".
A comment that was " coined in America ", when it become very clear what certain members of the duly elected Democrat Party serving in both Congress and the Senate and what they were up to "under the guise of - serving America".
My source of information is from those within American main stream media, associated media outlets and those who reside in those industries that " watch Politics " for which several have written very interesting books about certain members of The Democrat Party and their collective & individual actions.
I am aware that Clive was " looking at NZ " and the actions of a " few within Maoridom" - the questions I pose -
[1] - who is the paymaster
[2] - who in the background is creating the Policy of division
[3] - how much of past Maori radicalism & the people involved then ( reference - Ross Meurant- 'History can be a Bitch', breakingviewsnz. posted 16.11.24 - if you seek note names mentioned) - are being brought into play within Te Pati Maori, the staff who serve them, and those who sit outside Parliament, providing support.
White South Africans " ignored the growth of the African National Congress (ANC) " then it became to late.
Bibby gives us the view on race relations as he perceives them from Tolaga Bay. Now, I understand Tolaga Bay is Tuhoe country, and Tuhoe got an extraordinarily generous Treaty settlement in 2013, part of which required the Crown to apologise for past dealings that breached the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. I say extraordinarily generous because Tuhoe were never actually a party to the Treaty, They didn't sign it! So it seems to me the Crown had absolutely no Treaty obligations to breach, and no reason to make financial redress in the order of $170 million. No wonder the locals that Bibby has spent 45 years chatting to are happy chappies. They are laughing all the way to the bank, full in the knowledge that their good fortune is funded by every non-Tuhoe citizen of this country, including Maori with genuine Treaty claims. I'm not sure that's how an egalitarian society is supposed to work.
The Tolaga Bay (Uawa) Iwi may well whakapapa to Tuhoe as well as other tribes but the main tribal connections are Hauiti as part of the political construct currently known as Ngati Porou. My understanding is that their treaty settlement was independent of Tuhoe but of course individuals with dual ancestral connections may benefit from both.
Whatever, unlike “the Jones boy”, and knowing as l do many of the locals personally, l am confident
that my description of them is a fair representation of their character and aspirational goals.
As with any region, there will be those who are self interested in abusing the system to the extent that they unjustifiably benefit at the rest of our expense.
But those few are a minority and probably include more pakeha ratbags than Maori.
Your blanket character assassination of the locals I know is an insult but unfortunately, not unexpected from a pompous ignoramus like yourself.
Moderator, Please advise why my comment was not posted yesterday.
I don't know which 'Anonymous' you are - we have quite a few Anonymouses submitting comments and some of them are deleted.
Grounds for rejection include comments that are purely in the ad hominem category and add no substance to the discussion, and comments about individuals that could be actionable (libel).
But "not unexpected from a pompous ignoramus like yourself" is okay?
Hi moderator, I was the one that posted about Jones boys post and thought clives calling him names was a little too far. I thought I was respectful toward Clive, but wanted to pull him up over it. If that post was actionable then I'm pleased you refused it, but I would love to be educated on how it can be actionable against me,.
Regards
I posted a similar critical comment about the 'pompous ignoramus' description under my own name as I also thought it was unnecessary opprobrium and my reply was taken down soon after. I thought this site was a 'free speech' platform, and certainly thought my comment, accusing Bibby of similar pomposity was close to the truth, and no more ad hominem than his original version. I share the concern of others, above.
It's a hard life, Allen, especially for a moderator. It's walking a tightrope.
OK chaps .
If l am prepared to add my name to the comments l make and open myself up to personal attacks from all and sundry by doing so (Ewan McGregor and the Jones Boy to name but a few), is it too much to ask that, in reply, l might be allowed to fact check the data that is used against me.
I’m not bothered by people objecting to my turn of phrase when replying to things said about me that are patently untrue but those who use these pages to have a go at my character must expect a counter to their own distasteful rhetoric that is equal to the insulting language they use.
I make no apologies for hitting back at my critics in similar style.
And I’m happy leaving it to the Moderator to make a decision as to whether l have overstepped the mark. We all contribute opinions that are open to censure. It is a mark of the free speech society we live in. Long may it continue.
I note that my two attempts to wish Clive a happy New Year were not published. Seems to me they were innocuous enough but presumably he did not approve of their tone. I have been on the receiving end of his wrath once or twice before and give him credit for actually responding, but like any debate, resorting to ad-hominem arguments does nothing but diminish his credibility as a commentator.
Ewan, the offending words came after a lengthy paragraph which was on topic. Were it possible for me to delete parts of submissions, I would do so. However, I can't - it's all or nothing. In a democracy with a free flow of ideas, one needs to develop a thick skin.
Anonymous - it wasn't actionable but was entirely ad hominem and added nothing substantive to the debate.
Jones Boy, the function of BV isn't to dole out new year's wishes. The Post Office is a better venue for that.
Moderator, you have said, “In a democracy with a free flow of ideas, one needs to develop a thick skin”.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. Following a comment by Clive Bibby where he called a critic ‘a pompous ignoramus’ Allen Heath postered an objection which was succinct and entirely fair in my opinion. Soon after you took it down. If you re-post it I will argue that it should have stood. I have since added a comment, likewise critical of you. It has not appeared. I ask that it does so that I can defend it also.
In the meantime, Bibby has come back with a baseless claim that I and others, one also named, have subjected him to personal abuse, a serious accusation offered without evidence. Taking merely a dissenting opinion as a personal attack does not make it so.
This looks to me as if you are frustrating the exchange of ideas and opinions that are critical of your moderation. Does this qualify as free speech? I think not.
Lighten up, man! 'Personal abuse' and 'serious accusation' indeed - go see a lawyer about suing then!
Does this submission address the topic under discussion in the article? No. It's just one long personal whinge. BORING!
Get back on topic and we'll see what we can do but leave the personal gripe in the formaldehyde jar where it belongs.
Ewan.
You have repeatedly referred to me as a Trump admirer which is a lie and (using your words) without foundation.
Most people would regard this deliberate misrepresentation as personal abuse - an attack on my character which could be considered liable.
I’m not bothered.
I think we'll end this thread here.
Post a Comment