They are business leaders and write in support of promoting diversity and inclusion in their organizations and others. They outline our changing demographics and claim: “We have a choice to either lean in and face our new future together collectively as a nation or be left behind.”
Towards the end of the piece, they write:
“Earlier this year the Treaty Principles Bill had its final reading before being voted down, after more than 90% of the 300,000 submissions received were in opposition. Maybe the silver lining to this very public debate was that it showed how many New Zealanders cared about the Treaty and the relationship between Māori and Pākehā.”
Let’s unpack that:
The first thing to note is that Principles 2 and 3 of the Treaty Principles Bill refer to ‘all New Zealanders’ and the associated 10 October 2022 ACT Party press release claimed, “The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal.”
However, Watson and Gray then refer to “the relationship between Māori and Pākehā.” A relationship is the way in which two or more groups regard and behave towards each other. So, it is Watson and Gray who are separating us into two or more groups.
Both of those names of groups suffer from ambiguity due to a change of referential index since the Treaty. Then, a Maori was a Polynesian whose ancestors had been in New Zealand for centuries; today a Maori is a person with merely one 1840-Maori ancestor or more; for example, he or she could be 63/64 parts British.
In 1840, a Pākehā was a European (also ‘foreign’, ‘a flea’), but what do Watson and Gray mean by “Pākehā” today? If they mean a European, as in 1840, then they have excluded all other races, such as Asians, which does not meet their own criterion of inclusion. But if by “Pākehā” they mean Europeans and all other races except Maoris, then they are referring to all non-Maori people, including Islanders. In that case, they have branded a population of diverse cultures with the single epithet “Pākehā”, which is contrary to their criterion of diversity.
Consequently, Watson and Gray have either excluded all races except Maoris and Europeans, or they have divided New Zealanders into two groups: part-Maoris and non-Maoris, and never the twain shall meet.
They then lecture us about inclusion: “So, let’s make this new year one where we focus on inclusion to create strategic advantage for our businesses, communities and our country.” These New Zealand business leaders say they recommit to inclusion whilst disparaging the Treaty Principles Bill and separating us into two racially distinct groups.
In my experience, there was not previously a division of races in New Zealand; it has been instituted in recent decades and upheld by people such as Watson and Gray. It further seems to me that we are being brainwashed into believing that there has always been such a division, that it is our fault and that we must do something about closing it. That is likely to bring about cognitive dissonance in some.
Regarding employment, Watson and Gray say, “Yes, the person must be qualified for the job, but do they also bring that something else?” As business leaders, they are now qualifying our employment eligibility with veiled threats. We should consider the possibility that what they refer to as ‘inclusion’ may turn out to be replacement, also known as ‘decolonization’.
Having created a division of races in New Zealand, the ruling class are now coercing us into believing or pretending that it does not exist.
We are in a situation where proposals advocating equality, such as the Treaty Principles Bill, are derided as divisive and those which separate us, such as the prevailing interpretation of the Treaty, are promoted as inclusive. Similarly, and as an example of interpretation of the Treaty, whereas the First Article translates as “The Chiefs … give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government all of their land” (trans Kawhru), that is now taken to mean that the Chiefs did not cede sovereignty to the Crown.
Things are being taken to mean the opposite of what they say and, furthermore, the opposite is claimed for the actual outcomes of their interpretation. We have been propagandized and as a result we are collectively deranged.
We need a way to consider ourselves objectively because I cannot escape the conclusion that on our present trajectory, it is going to end poorly.
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
No comments:
Post a Comment