The Treaty Debate
January 30th, 2004 at 12:46 pm by David FarrarIt has been interesting viewing from afar the reaction to Don Brash’s very thoughtful speech on the Treaty of Waitangi. I would encourage people to read it.
I am very proud of what National achieved in the 1990s with settling historical grievances, but also believe that the Treaty has been pushed into a near mythical status which is unwarranted. I have seen two very intelligent and concerned National Party Leaders study the Treaty issue at great length (including historical texts from 1840) and both of them have concluded that continuing on the current path will be a huge mistake for NZ. Dividing the country up on the basis of Maori and non Maori will, especially as the proportion of NZers of Maori descent rises, take us down a Fiji path. In 50 – 100 years one can not have 50% of the country with special rights the other 50% do not have.
The media seem to have reported only opposition to what Don Brash has proposed, but when the only people you quote are Government Ministers and Maori spokespersons, that is hardly balanced reporting.
It is a shame that Labour MPs only response seems to be to call anyone who disagrees with as racists. As ACT rightly point out, we seem to have 1984 style “newspeak” when it is deemed racist to propose not allocating seats on the basis of racial ancestry.
No tag for this post.
January 31st, 2004 at 1:36 am
Treaty issues, alias positive discrimination
What noone has seemed to bring up is that that Don Brash speech was actually about people getting fed up about positive discrimination, as far as I see it. There must be a middle ground people can be persuaded to…
Vote:February 1st, 2004 at 10:09 pm
how is it genetically possible for maori to be
the majority in say 50-100 years.
it is true that half the population will have maori blood.
but that is only achieved through interbreeding with white folk,if maori want self rule and special rights why do they marry white folk.
if the entire population of russia had 10 percent swedish blood in them but the rest of ones ancestry was russian slavic would you say that all russians are 100 percent swedish.
this whole treaty bullshit is about maori wanting porsches and mansions like white people.if maori want the sea bed and foreshore than let them have it but if this is material than thats the anthithis of maoridim or is it,one day they get all cultural on my ass the next day its philips wide screen tvs white girlfriends and lattes.
make up your mind maori cultural spiritualor western material,because if special treatment for maori is cultural and spiritual then i support it.
but if special treatment is for you to live western euro lifestyles then shut up and get real.
Vote:February 1st, 2004 at 10:28 pm
I’d love to hear ’81 anti-tour protest vets like Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff and Hel-zilla explain why a racially determined legislature is evil in 1981 South Africa, ‘concerning’ in Zimbabwe, kinda bad but not worth too much of a fuss in Fiji and perfectly OK in New Zealand. Does racism become worse the further away it is?
Vote:February 4th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
No, racism is only bad when it is us honkies doing it.
Vote:March 14th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
I look at this way, I cannot decide to sell my house for 50k and then come back in a few years time, see all the work the new owners have done to make that property worth 200k, and demand it back! Anyway, did the maori tribes ever ‘own’ NZ? Before the settlers came, maori culture consisted of tribalism,warfare and slavery. They would fight with rival tribes for land and therefore resources. Many animals had been driven to extinction, and much of the country’s natural resources had been almost stripped bare due to slash & burn agriculture. Much time was spent fighting over land, leaving less time for mere survival ie. cultivation. So most maori wanted, even needed the brits and thier laws, ecspecially PROPERTY RIGHTS!!
Vote:August 5th, 2004 at 10:05 pm
did we sell ‘our’ land? no.
Vote:we gave the european settlers permission to share the resources we had cultivated, and yes i do mean cultivate, not all farming invloves fences and fields of monocultural plants.
the maori view of land was not that it was owned, but that you had a right to use the resources in an area depending on how long your family had been there and looked after those resources.
when the europeans came and ‘bought’the land from maori, apart from the obvious underhand dealings invloved, and the promises never followed through with, there was also large discrepancies between what Maori expected to hand over, and what the crown took.
in these comparitively liberal(?) days, is it not expected that you might want some of what is rightfully yours back, so that you may have an equal chance of succeeding in a world dictated by a capitalist culture?
why is it so wrong for a culture to evolve either? i see no problem in enjoying on the one hand a common pastime such as drinking coffee, and on the other, being able to connect with a part of your heritage. why should we have less right to a lifestyle of our choice than others just because we choose to practice our own cultural beliefs?
August 9th, 2004 at 2:33 pm
The Treaty Debate David Farrar
The Treaty was never intended for Maori and history has proved that it is most certainly the case. The stupidity of this long drawn out dishonest Treaty saga, is that Maori have tried to manage such a process in a seemingly honest manner, believing politics was about democracy and the law was an honest process. Maori have now learnt that a 4000 year old Law, like that founded by the Magna Carta is still quite relevant in New Zealand Law in the 21st Century, but a Treaty less then 200 years old, is outdated. Why because the Treaty partner’s full intention was to be dishonest? The view that Mr Haami Piripi expressed in their submission, relative to the Foreshore and Seabed Select Committee process, is a lot closer to each and every person in NZ, where he highlights civil disturbance as a possibility, if the Crown continues to confiscate, as is the case. To vindicate that the useless “Maori Policies in Government policy” is racist is quite correct, because these policies is intended to marginalise Maori and to create unrest with the white majority. Our very learned dishonest New Zealand society, supported by our learned University professionals and a dishonest law-maker will create significant unrest in the very near few. For those simplistis souls who think that when an off-spring of Maori and Pakeha relationship, should then discard one element of his or her descent, is nothing more then a confused soul. But we wish you well. Equally, when people who send a very strong message that “we are all New Zealanders culture”, usually means that the culture being referred too, is “quite English in nature”.
Vote: