1. The Maoris are indigenous to NZ.
Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, gaggles of Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. a mere 400 years before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even the modern part-Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.
2. The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white man.
Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.
3. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.
This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.
4. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.
The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.
5. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.
No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.
This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.
6. There are principles of the Treaty.
No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.
7. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.
There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!
8. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”
Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.
It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite - including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.
9. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.
In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.
The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.
10. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.
Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.
11. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.
In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.
12. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.
In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”
13. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.
This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”
14. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.
Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.
3. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.
This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.
4. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.
The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.
5. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.
No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.
This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.
6. There are principles of the Treaty.
No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.
7. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.
There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!
8. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”
Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.
It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite - including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.
9. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.
In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.
The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.
10. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.
Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.
11. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.
In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.
12. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.
In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”
13. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.
This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”
14. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.
Wrong. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from their own narrow interests. By his co-governance agreements with Tuhoe and other favoured tribes, Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, is driving a racist, separatist sword through the nation’s sovereignty and undermining our hard-won democracy.
15. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.
Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.
In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.
16. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.
Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.
17. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.
There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.
Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.
18. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.
Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.
Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.
19. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.
No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.
20. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.
Wrong. Some poll results:
* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)
* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)
* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)
* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)
81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)
* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)
* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)
* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)
* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)
* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012
* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013
* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012
* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012
* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015
* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)
* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished
21. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.
Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.
22. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.
This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.
These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.
A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.
Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210123162803/http://1law4all.kiwi.nz/2016/04/21/twenty-two-mendacious-modern-part-maori-myths/
15. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.
Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.
In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.
16. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.
Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.
17. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.
There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.
Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.
18. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.
Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.
Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.
19. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.
No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.
20. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.
Wrong. Some poll results:
* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)
* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)
* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)
* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)
81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)
* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)
* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)
* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)
* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)
* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012
* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013
* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012
* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012
* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015
* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)
* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished
21. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.
Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.
22. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.
This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.
******************
These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.
A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.
Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210123162803/http://1law4all.kiwi.nz/2016/04/21/twenty-two-mendacious-modern-part-maori-myths/
19 comments:
Hopefully this sort of insight gets read by the PM because he appears to be doing nothing to stop the rorts. And while the cost of living is a source of concern, I would venture the Maorification of NZ is of greater concern, but everyone is terrified of being labelled racist. At least ACT and David Seymour tried to rectify things. If National or Labour get returned to power in 2026, expect more of the same.
Excellent summary. A pity it couldn't be turned into a song and played every day on the radio or placed in newspapers on perhaps a newly instituted 'English language week' or 'Colonisation Day'. These facts need to be drummed into the brain of every child at school and force-fed to adults who have been too blind or stupid to see sense.
Brilliant, accurate summary.
I will use this article to educate friends offshore of the true situation in NZ, and why it is finished as one of the best little democracies in the world.
Destroyed by Ardern, and buried by Luxon.
NZ has a population of about 5.5M.
Of that number, how many are there of the radical Maori who deny the history and truth, and demand these extraordinary advantages ?
Are we talking about
1,000
10,000
100,000
Why are there demands considered when they are plainly a small minority ?
What coercion are our politicians under to bow to these clearly wrong pressures ?
Just as Britain would not contemplate a partnership, so too it would not sign a treaty in te reo Maori. The only Treaty is the original English one. That was the one authored and understood by Britain as to what is being agreed to in order to be sovereign. Any translations thereof were attempts to reflect that.
Yes, indeed, an excellent summary and one that should be compulsory reading for all NZrs. But, alas, many are too stupid, complacent, or downright apathetic to do just that and this is precisely the reason why we now have fomenting racial tension that will inevitably result in mayhem and our undoing. Our democracy, and thereby our economy, is afflicted by a cancer. Like wishful thinking, more appeasement will only delay our sad, painful, yet quite unnecessary demise.
The next election will be our last chance, for it's now clear that as neither of our two main political parties truly desire citizen equality, they're therefore unfit to represent us.
Excellent article. Very thorough and factually CORRECT.
Should be compulsory studying in all schools.
Bleeding obvious innit? Those who identify as 'Maori', who have any doubts, consider if you would even be here today if another global power, rather than Brtitain, had taken control in the 1840s. Their generosity and consideration to the native population was probably unique in those times of rapid global colonisation. Read about the lot of other native populations eg American Indians. They were bloody hard times that we probably can't imagine today. To judge those times through today's eyes is pointless and unhelpful. Ameni.
1law4all has been pushing its agenda since 2014 in various publications. It has faced indignant outrage from all the usual suspects, from Te Pati Maori to the residents of Point Chevalier, and seemed to have retreated under a rock since running afoul of the Advertising Standards Authority in 2019. But it must have sensed a change in public attitudes arising from the recent excesses of TPM and it seems they have now emerged from hiding to have another go.
But if it is serious, 1law4all needs to refine its approach. Pushing a position from the extreme right-hand end of the political spectrum was never going to be easy, however noble the intention. So they need to support their case with hard data and package it in a form that is palatable to middle New Zealand.
A good example is the statement "In the 1800s Maoris lost most of their lands". That historical fact is at the core of the Treaty grievance industry. It is constantly framed by TPM as meaning the land was stolen or obtained by generally nefarious means, all of which were the fault of the Crown. On the other hand, 1law4all asserts the land was sold for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price meaning it was legally lost.
Both assertions remain emotionally charged and make unsubstantiated generalisations about a lot of complex transactions. But surely there is a wealth of data available in land registration records to paint a picture of which view is more likely to be correct? So go prove your point 1law4all. If it hasn't already been done, go mine the data and compile a database of all the individual transactions that first transferred land out of Maori ownership. Then publish the results. Use recorded fact to combat the oral history peddled in the Waitangi Tribunal as truth. Only then are you in a position to draw your conclusions about who was rorting whom.
But while you are at it, you need to point out to the historically challenged that all land sales were made in the context of the Crown's right of pre-emption contained in Article 2 of the Treaty. A right that was intended, not to cheat Maori out of their land, but to protect them from predatory land speculators.
Yet that protection was lost only four years later when the right of pre-emption was waived by Governor Fitzroy at the request of the chiefs who wanted to be allowed to sell their land to the highest bidder. If the loss of protection from the Crown was what they wanted, they can hardly blame the Crown for their subsequent misfortune after it was granted.
And that's certainly something TPM do not want discussed.
Try getting this published in the New Zealand Herald, or maybe send it to John Campbell at TVNZ I'm sure he'd love to make a little Doco series to keep us all well informed. After all all, he's such a kind man and wouldn't want to misinform anyone.
Oh, and now that NZME has a new board, there organization must surly be on the lookout for some factual stories to give them a bit of a boost in the ratings.
I know, lets just send it straight to the top. Chris must have time for a little light reading in the back of the Limo, after all I'm sure that's were he gets all his best inspirational policy ideas.
The facts of the matter do not seem to matter terribly much to the various sectors pushing their claims. If we look down the track a little way what seems to stand out is the determined efforts by both major parties to put this society to torture by death of a thousand cuts. Little by little the process continues. Some really bizarre legal judgments here, some rewritten histories there, a bit more pressure for te reo in the MSM, Histrionic and frankly disgraceful performances in parliament and so it goes. If voting could fix it they would never let you near a voting booth. I wonder where the real engine of destruction can be found?
What a great article. It ennuciates so many thoughts I have had for some time.
In reference to Jones Boy: Re 'stolen land'. I have a number of woke acquaintances who bring this up - 'but we are living on stolen land' as justification for all grievance payouts. So it would be great if someone did the detailed research so I can shut these people up with undeniable facts. Sections should be 1. Fair and square deals. 2 Dodgy or pressured deals by Govt. 3 Dodgy deals by settlers. 4 Dodgy deals by Maori. 5 Land confiscated by the Govt. 6 Confiscated land returned to rightful owners by the Govt. It would be a worthy History PhD topic for a student with great courage.
Sold their land ?
Had it "stolen" ?
Then why do Maori still have full control of what we can do on our lawfully owned properties ?
Why do we have to have Maori permission (for a considerable payment) to be allowed to build, plant a tree, cut down a tree ?
Warrants a look at the iwi leaders and their interactions with our PM and his cadre. Finlayson is probably in there somewhere too.
The truth shall set you free but at first the truth could piss a few off!
I remember being ripped off in the 50s buying 'Maori land' on Lake Taupo. Everybody owned it and nobody owned it. Net result, cash gone. These things are not one sided. I lived for a period as a definite 'whitey'minority in a predominently Maori town. We all got on fine with piss taking flowing in both directions. However racial prejudice is not just a 'white' thing - it was there. I returned to this area about 25 years later, and while driving down to a beach that I used to frequently enjoy, was intercepted by some lads in a ute and told to eff off in no uncertain terms. The do gooders often simply haven't a clue about the realities, and as a consequence, usually do more harm than good.
Can't edit but, I meant to type that my father was ripped off. I was a little young to purchase land then.
In addition to my earlier comment. I often hear from do gooders to justify special treatment for 'part' Maori - the British settlers (ie we) treated Maori so badly. I know there was prejudice and unfairness but minute compared with the barbaric way various tribes treated each other. So another useful area of research would be to collate all the recorded events where Maori were mistreated. Conversely Maori mistreatment of settlers also needs to be publicly recognised (eg events in Taranaki in 1860s)
There were shonky land deals by both settlers and Maori. Quite a few written records of disputes on which tribe actually had the right to sell certain land. Some land had to be paid for multiple times as different tribes claimed ownership. Wouldn't have happened if Crown had purchased it as per Treaty, as title would have been ascertained before purchase
Post a Comment