Then look at the other reality about land being given to ex-soldiers in the 50's and the exclusion of Maori which was unfair, just is dealing with tribal persons is unfair on individual Maori. The actual gifting of land for farms was done by ballot, not just given to any Pakeha returned serviceman. More missed out than received, and I can remember my father being very derogatory about the ballot procedures not being unbiased or fair because there seemed to be some obvious preferences. It is and was easy to see that individuals favoured with a balloted farm did far better (lets face it farming was productive and rewarding in the 50's and 60's and has too many overheads of the regulatory kind these days.) than servicemen who missed out on ballots. However even without farms it has always been the get up and go of individuals, given opportunity of bank finance through direct personal loans, who made the country really hum back in the growth years of the 50's and 60's until in the 70's the growth was redirected into heading into large corporations to reach the stage where it is international corporations throttling the potential of just about everything (as Black Rock type invasion of commerce and business ownership, even of farms, is happening at an ever increasing rate).
But back to the lives of individuals be they Pakeha or Maori. Tribalism has never favoured the individual, always the chiefly hierarchy and chosen families, where nepotism always holds sway. It does here, it did in Scotland and all tribal societies. They are not democratic nor will they ever be. Everyone Maori or Pakeha who couldn't get loans, or win a ballot missed out on the chance to improve their lot the easy way. Others had to work much harder and push themselves to achieve. Those with real drive, such as many settlers did worked harder and managed to progress, but those who relied on any form of charity, or group organisation such as a tribe never did except through nepotism or perhaps criminal activity. That is why without the settler motivation many of our society ended up guests of HM authorities regardless of skin tone. Unfortunately it seems to have become a career choice for many, especially those who look with jealousy at people who have more than they do. Very often people who favour left wing voting, who follow the group instead of having gumption to breakaway from a mindset, or have avoided applying themselves to anything except idle pursuits while ignoring education or even actively deriding it. And education isn't just the pursuit of academia, civilisation wasn't built by academics. People with technical education, from miners, blacksmiths animal husbandry, horticulture and those using construction principles were the builders. However it was generally people within those groups who lead, and took knowledgeable risks who made the most personal gains. The followers never achieved the same degree of advancement.
But back to the lives of individuals be they Pakeha or Maori. Tribalism has never favoured the individual, always the chiefly hierarchy and chosen families, where nepotism always holds sway. It does here, it did in Scotland and all tribal societies. They are not democratic nor will they ever be. Everyone Maori or Pakeha who couldn't get loans, or win a ballot missed out on the chance to improve their lot the easy way. Others had to work much harder and push themselves to achieve. Those with real drive, such as many settlers did worked harder and managed to progress, but those who relied on any form of charity, or group organisation such as a tribe never did except through nepotism or perhaps criminal activity. That is why without the settler motivation many of our society ended up guests of HM authorities regardless of skin tone. Unfortunately it seems to have become a career choice for many, especially those who look with jealousy at people who have more than they do. Very often people who favour left wing voting, who follow the group instead of having gumption to breakaway from a mindset, or have avoided applying themselves to anything except idle pursuits while ignoring education or even actively deriding it. And education isn't just the pursuit of academia, civilisation wasn't built by academics. People with technical education, from miners, blacksmiths animal husbandry, horticulture and those using construction principles were the builders. However it was generally people within those groups who lead, and took knowledgeable risks who made the most personal gains. The followers never achieved the same degree of advancement.
In a tribal society those at the top ensure their position remains protected and not open to commoners. Traces of this are still evident in the old countries, and what do we have here? Successive governments who by favouring Maori tribalism have committed most of their people to continued undemocratic lifestyles of following and being controlled by a few using breeding and nepotism to control communal wealth and deliberately not letting ordinary individuals 'rise above their station in life'. Hence the lack of drive, imagination and sense of self. The very same attributes in society that communism appealed to in the working class of Britain. Jealousy and envy of those who boke out of that mould. We even imported that problem with the trade unionists who came out here and brought their anti-boss anti-progress attitudes. While improved labour conditions were definitely needed in some industries the processes used were more about bullying followers and anyone who didn't agree than democracy, amicable negotiation and reason.
NZ has reached the stage where government miss-management, tribalism preferred over democracy, lack of real practical education, corporatisation, amalgamation, centralisation, the introduction of preference and privilege depending on who by race or association and connection, all have combined to intentionally hand this country over to the Globalists, one massive tribal system that wants individualism crushed, and humanity replaced. All New Zealanders regardless of who they think they should be, are at risk in the direction the country is going. In the meantime it's the billions not dispersed among individuals that have created another aristocratic hegemony and overlordship versus democracy.
Source: Facebook
NZ has reached the stage where government miss-management, tribalism preferred over democracy, lack of real practical education, corporatisation, amalgamation, centralisation, the introduction of preference and privilege depending on who by race or association and connection, all have combined to intentionally hand this country over to the Globalists, one massive tribal system that wants individualism crushed, and humanity replaced. All New Zealanders regardless of who they think they should be, are at risk in the direction the country is going. In the meantime it's the billions not dispersed among individuals that have created another aristocratic hegemony and overlordship versus democracy.
Source: Facebook
4 comments:
That is where treaty settlements have gone wrong. I have always thought that each member of the tribe should have been given an equal share of the settlement. This would give every member of the tribe equal wealth and power. Imagine the tribe having to have elections to make decisions on where to invest, what tribal housing to build. The chiefs would have the same rights and privileges as others. Isn’t that called democracy?
Anon 8:05 - great argument, however, how are you going to identify a tribal member ?
Intermarriage between different tribes ?
Would Willie Jxn qualify with only a 3% Maori DNA ?
Far too complex.
Cancel the Waitangi Tribunal, cancel the Maori seats, and try to get Luxon to restore some semblance of democracy.
Excellent commentary.
All systems everywhere are a form of tribalism. What we refer to as 'western democracy' is a form of tribalism. Here in NZ, we see success of those deemed 'at the top of the heap' having all the benefits and privilege of a monarch. At the same time, battlers at the bottom of the heap often fail to understand how that came about.
Some at the 'top' of the heap inherited the position but most got there by deciding to do something about their own position.
The interesting thing is that most of those who succeed take a
group of people with them, thereby creating a form of tribalism, albeit on a very small scale.
Tribalism within Maori is exactly as described in the article, those at the top have no interest in those at the bottom. They are kept in their place by any means. there they are denied any benefit individually from treaty settlements but more from a collective system that those at the top consider sufficient.
While Maori continue to receive assistance from others on the outside the tribal system, the incentive to opt for change and betterment is not there.
In a tribal system, that incentive is unlikely to surface.
Ray S is equating tribalism with classism (the author of this piece veers in that direction as well) whereas tribalism is a subset of classism. Strictly speaking, there is an ethnic component to tribalism - there are closer blood ties between members of a tribe than there are between them and non-members of that tribe. Admittedly, the term 'tribalism', like so many, has come to be misapplied to any form of cronyism associated with social class. But the strict ethnic definition is relevant here as we are talking specifically about Maori matters which includes a tribal as well as racial identity.
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.