Welcome to New Zealand, where “tradition” is less about preserving the past and more about rewriting it on the fly with taxpayers footing the bill. Only in Māori culture can something be both a “revival” and a brand-new invention, all while being enforced as if it were chiselled in stone since time began. Point this out and you’re instantly branded a cultural heretic. Because nothing screams “authentic” like rituals cooked up in a committee room sometime around 1987.
Take te reo. A century ago, Māori vocabulary was limited and nobody fussed about macrons. Fast-forward to today and the Māori Language Commission has ballooned the lexicon into tens of thousands of shiny new terms. Now you can wax lyrical about space rockets, digital sovereignty, and cyber policy all in the “ancient tongue.” It’s less cultural continuity and more linguistic inflation, but we’re expected to believe that great-granddad was chewing over cloud computing in flawless reo.
History gets the same glossy reboot. By the 1920s, many “traditional practices” had quietly merged into modern life. But Tikanga 2.0 insists on staging an elaborate reenactment, complete with sacred protocols that everyone else must tiptoe around. More cosplay than continuity, but bureaucrats lap it up because nothing unlocks government chequebooks faster than a freshly minted “ancient custom.”
And then there’s politics. State funded language drives, preferential consultation rights, and veto powers are all dressed up as “protecting heritage.” Never mind if half of it was dreamed up during the Lange years it still makes a handy lever to tilt resources and rights in one direction. Equality for everyone? Sorry, that line was deleted from the script years ago.
***
Labour’s Patchwork of Excuses: When Personal Views Outrun Party Policy
Labour’s Tāmaki Makaurau candidate Peeni Henare has found himself tangled in a patch he can’t seem to sew shut. At a debate, when asked if Labour would repeal the gang patch ban, Henare answered with a nice clear “āe” yes. Simple enough. But almost immediately, Labour’s deputy leader swooped in with the political damage control: “Oh, that was just his personal view, not party policy.”
Well, isn’t that reassuring? Because when you’re standing for Parliament, apparently you get to wear two different hats one for the voters, one for the party, and switch between them whenever the heat’s on. Voters are now expected to play Guess Who: was that Peeni the man speaking, or Peeni the Labour candidate? Should the electorate take him seriously at a public debate, or was he just free styling his “personal opinion” while running for high office?
Meanwhile, the substance of the “personal view” is even worse. When asked about gangs, Henare didn’t stumble, hesitate, or waffle he outright backed repealing the very law designed to stop intimidation and patch-politics on our streets. Only later did Labour HQ scramble to assure us that no, no, no, they really do support the law, and Henare was “mistaken.” Mistaken? That’s one way of describing saying exactly what you believe out loud.
Here’s the problem: siding with gangs, even rhetorically, is political kryptonite. It’s one thing to have sympathy for whānau caught up in gang life, but quite another to stand on stage and promise to roll back law and order. And trying to wash it away by blaming the slip on “personal views” just makes Labour look like it’s stitched together with duct tape and denial.
In the end, voters don’t elect “personal views.” They elect parties, policies, and MPs who are supposed to know the difference between representing their own whānau and representing the country. If Henare can’t draw that line in a debate, what chance has Labour got of drawing one in government?
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
Labour’s Patchwork of Excuses: When Personal Views Outrun Party Policy
Labour’s Tāmaki Makaurau candidate Peeni Henare has found himself tangled in a patch he can’t seem to sew shut. At a debate, when asked if Labour would repeal the gang patch ban, Henare answered with a nice clear “āe” yes. Simple enough. But almost immediately, Labour’s deputy leader swooped in with the political damage control: “Oh, that was just his personal view, not party policy.”
Well, isn’t that reassuring? Because when you’re standing for Parliament, apparently you get to wear two different hats one for the voters, one for the party, and switch between them whenever the heat’s on. Voters are now expected to play Guess Who: was that Peeni the man speaking, or Peeni the Labour candidate? Should the electorate take him seriously at a public debate, or was he just free styling his “personal opinion” while running for high office?
Meanwhile, the substance of the “personal view” is even worse. When asked about gangs, Henare didn’t stumble, hesitate, or waffle he outright backed repealing the very law designed to stop intimidation and patch-politics on our streets. Only later did Labour HQ scramble to assure us that no, no, no, they really do support the law, and Henare was “mistaken.” Mistaken? That’s one way of describing saying exactly what you believe out loud.
Here’s the problem: siding with gangs, even rhetorically, is political kryptonite. It’s one thing to have sympathy for whānau caught up in gang life, but quite another to stand on stage and promise to roll back law and order. And trying to wash it away by blaming the slip on “personal views” just makes Labour look like it’s stitched together with duct tape and denial.
In the end, voters don’t elect “personal views.” They elect parties, policies, and MPs who are supposed to know the difference between representing their own whānau and representing the country. If Henare can’t draw that line in a debate, what chance has Labour got of drawing one in government?
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
5 comments:
We are all people – people of planet Earth, connected to the land and the sea, tenants in common to all humanity. An ancient book of wisdom talks of man’s responsibility to the garden of Earth. All mankind navigated by stars and came up with traditional knowledge to protect society, retain power, advance both individual and tribal interests. It is just that the rest of the world did it more than 10,000years. The evolution and bravery of those who sought the free exchange of ideas and challenging norms and belief systems when things didn’t add up logically or were instruments of power was the groundwork for scientific enquiry and proving ideas, as well as free speech. The advancement of education allowed the common person, regardless of station, access to knowledge rather than just an elite who could hold and wield power over others as they were the keepers of knowledge and tradition. And to ensure collective knowledge was retained it was written down. Further to the written word, were numerical systems and coinage from thousands of years ago to assist economy.
Using Maori words to describe values that anyone can have is just nuevo-Maori. Everyone is kaitiaki, everyone has tipuna, everyone can whakapapa and none of these make anyone more special than anyone else born naked into the world. Feel free to keep up karakia at Maori meetings as part of Maori tikanga and culture, but why impose unfounded, unscientific, unwritten, uncertain, unproved, (untrue?), diktats from a neolithic society with no real technology, no substantial farming and brutally at war within themselves?
Well said.
The entire concept of modern Maori culture, as currently being force upon all, including children as young as 5, is a contrived nonsense, designed to cause as much division in our society as possible.
It would be unthinkable for any modern people's to actually try and live a pre European, traditional life style and follow the normal inhuman traditions of those times.
I just wish, more could see through this noble savage contrived lunacy, and show more respect for the way of life that has served us all so well.
Steven Gaskell, not most of young NZ is living in the past. Poor Steven Gaskell, what an awful time he would have had a the Women's Rugby World Cup final - 42,000 multi racial, mostly under 30's fans, all with poi, all singing confidently in English and te reo - they knew all the words. It's a choice for all the Steven Gaskell's - stay grumpy and negative, or go where the country has gone.
Your politicians with personal beliefs is a non issue. Every politician has personal beliefs - some that dont match with their party. It's not just a Labour thing, members of all parties have been in trouble in the past - some apologize, some leave.
Anon at 8.05:
Your comment would suggest the radical Maori indoctrination campaign has worked?
If so, another generous income stream ( other than tax payers) must be found for the endless funding needed.
Do you have China in mind?
Post a Comment