Paddy joins the blogosphere

April 23rd, 2010 at 11:03 am by David Farrar

Paddy Gower (or Patrick as he uses on air) has joined the with Gower on Politics, which is on the Three News site.

His first blog is on the Urerewas with Tuhoe.

He says:

There is no doubt Tuhoe suffered at the hands of the Crown, who unleashed a “scorched earth campaign” against them in the 1800s; their homes were destroyed, their people jailed and killed. They were run off their land and have spent the time since trying to get it back.

Now they are close; very close.

For those who are not aware of the extent of the wrongs done, Te Ara says:

The government waged a bitter campaign in Te Urewera in its search for Te Kooti and his followers. Old enemies of Tūhoe fought on the side of the government; they carried out most of the raids into Te Urewera during a prolonged and destructive search between 1869 and 1872. In a policy aimed at turning the tribe away from Te Kooti, a scorched earth campaign was unleashed against Tūhoe; people were imprisoned and killed, their cultivations and homes destroyed, and stock killed or run off. Through starvation, deprivation and atrocities at the hands of the government’s Māori forces, Tūhoe submitted to the Crown.

Gower continues:

Negotiations are incredibly delicate, involving issues like the ownership and control of the Urewera National Park and Tuhoe’s desire for self-rule. It’s a combustible combination, especially when thrown on the race relations fire that is always burning away in the background of middle New Zealand. Put simply, this is about the weight of history coming up hard against the pressure of day-to-day politics.

And the details:

Mana Motuhake means self-rule or self-government. This is Tuhoe’s dream. It had it once before and never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Now the Government has quite predictably ruled out Tuhoe becoming a separate nation – or as Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson put it the ridiculous notion of “a Liechtenstein in the Ureweras”.

But Finlayson has also referred to “complexities” in the negotiations. Enter, Mana Motuhake. Mana Motuhake is on the table on the form of some devolution of public functions.

Plus there is more on the quantum of compensation and management of the Ureweras. Gower obviously has good sources and it will be very interesting to see, if a deal is done, the details.

Of all the historic grievances (and anyone who thinks there is no justified grievance should read history books on what happened) this is probably the most complex and difficult. If they manage this one, then the aim of settling them all by 2014 may be achievable after all.

Tags: , ,

41 Responses to “Paddy joins the blogosphere”

  1. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Why is this “claim” being handled by the Treaty negotiations minister if Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Shit its agood thing that no Maori ever did anything bad isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. EverlastingFire (286 comments) says:

    If they didn’t sign the treaty then wouldn’t they have no treaty claim to make? That land at the time was legally confiscated by the Crown.

    I have no sympathy, all of us have ancestors out of living memory that have been victims throughout history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    Like Tuwharetoa and Te Arawa, Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty but this does not stop them making claims . The most recent being the $500 million they shared from the Treelords scam, I mean settlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    What does he mean about “the race relations fire that is always burning away in the background of middle New Zealand”?

    Yeah, I have read the previous posts. Attempting sarcasm. I’d guess that “middle New Zealand” is not a whole, it is more like two halves, some understand, some don’t want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Perhaps apropos is this letter from one Robert Patterson in today’s Christchurch Press:

    Has Chris Finlayson, the Attorney-General, worked for any iwi on Treaty of Waitangi settlements?

    If he has, surely he has a conflict of interest in his post as the Government’s negotiator of Settlements, and he should be honorable enough to step aside.

    If he doesn’t he will make a joke of the position and Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Gower was the guy who wrote what Whale described as a “pathetic beat up” about NZ soldiers writing a message on a bomb destined to be dropped on the Taleban. The soldiers were sent home.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    What would be wrong about creating a Urewera Region governed by a regional council? The locals would be able to elect whoever they wanted and could govern themselves. That’s self-government, complete with revenue raising via rates, and they could provide themselves whatever services they wanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. beautox (422 comments) says:

    These people had no problem with the concept that if they won a war they were entitled to the spoils. So, they lost. Get over it. The people who lost are all dead now. The people who are alive now don’t deserve squat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    davidp posted at 12.04:

    …What would be wrong about creating a Urewera Region governed by a regional council? The locals would be able to elect whoever they wanted and could govern themselves…

    If it’s okay for little Tama Iti and his tribal mates, we want it for the South Island too. Then we can take the south into Australia. Better Aussie for our kids than a future as a harassed majority in a race-based Aotearoa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chicken Little (741 comments) says:

    So the new history revision is that Tuhoe were quietly sitting in their villages, all peaceful like, and the bad old Govt just came in and started raping and killing for no reason? I call bullshit on that.

    In reality Tuhoe actively aided and abetted Te Kooti and his followers, with some hapu joining him on raids. Read the Gilbert Mair biography – Te Kootis Nemesis for the actual history of this time in the Ureweras

    I’m assuming all these new stories are the softening up of us plebs for the handing back of the Park to Tuhoe.

    National are a bunch of fools going down this road. It will end in tears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Viking2 (11,469 comments) says:

    Perhaps you shpuld pause a while and read Judith Binneys book on the subject. Published just before Xmas
    Called
    “Unbridled Lands” or her earlier book on Rua.
    You would find out about the way they were treated including by the often promoted Apirana Ngata.

    Real interesting history. And just to make you understand how so, there are two Cullens that feature in the Tuhoe’s history. Neither of them with any credit.
    The first was Nz’s police boss at the time of the Waihi miners strike and ordered the firing on those men and then repeated the act at Maungapohatu killing two people in what was later described by two other Gisbourne police as murder. The later Cullen was of course in charge of our nations so called security and was responsible for the acts and raids in recent times.
    An act that was aimed at preventing Tuhoe from having the Urewera’s returned to them and them (Tuhoe), gaining the advantage from the Crown of the carbon credits tied up in the forests.

    For those that rant without the knowledge of the history go get the book and read it. Its big so you had better have a concentration span of more than a sound bite or a megabyte. Like many days longer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tom Barker (143 comments) says:

    Numerous important and leading chiefs did not sign the Treaty – they include the paramount chiefs of the East Coast, of Waikato, and of Tuwharetoa in the centre of the North Island. Whether they, Tuhoe and other prominent non-signers were ever actually ASKED to sign is not always clear. The simple historical fact is that, once a group of Northland chiefs signed on 6 February 1840, the Treaty was deemed to apply equally to all Maori everywhere in the country. Any subsequent signatures were gathered largely as a PR exercise – they made no real difference to the later effect of the Treaty on the nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Viking2 (11,469 comments) says:

    And there in lies the problem. Just like today , who says you can take my property and sovereignty?
    eh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Jack5>If it’s okay for little Tama Iti and his tribal mates, we want it for the South Island too.

    The South Island already has a number of regional councils.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    DavidP at 12:40:

    …The South Island already has a number of regional councils…

    They aren’t race based or tribe based. They are democratically elected, or were until the Government summarily seized the Canterbury one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    “These people had no problem with the concept that if they won a war they were entitled to the spoils. So, they lost. Get over it. The people who lost are all dead now. The people who are alive now don’t deserve squat.”

    Following that logic leads to civil war.

    Nice post DPF, unfortunately the commentors lived up to their double standards…again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    Jack5… A Urewera Regional Council would be regionally based, even if the region was one which has a high proportion of Maori, and would be democratically elected. Splitting or amalgamating regional or city councils isn’t that big a deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    The great error of the treaty process is that people actually believe that it will solve all of maori’s problems.

    It wont – not even likely too. Even if all of the country was ‘given’ to maori, things wouodnt change. Maori have successfully implanted in their mimnds that they have been wronged and that the situation wont be resolved until they each have all the money and property and freedom etc that they want.

    To do that one has to get off ones arse and work. One has to get off the DPB. One has to get educated. etc

    Many of these things are anathema to many maori. There are a lot of maori who actually think that education is no good. What a majority of maori dont understand is that they need the rest of the the country and the rest of the world more than they rest of the world need maori.

    Ive never even thought of wailing about the evils visited upon my scottish and irish forebears. I dont even want to know what property was lost when the scottish clerances resulted in my forebear arriving in canada with nothing, nor am I interested in the obstacles the british put in the way of resolution of many of the irish famines and desease problems. Im not interested in that.
    I am interested in bettering myself and my family. I do everything I can to make sure that my 4 kids get the best education they can and I have no intention of saddling them with the unsolvable errors of their history – which they will find out when they get older.

    Tuhoe wont solve their unemployment and criminal and general dislike of the rest of the world by gaining a ownership of the urewera. theyve got to get educated and stop going to prison to make progress – and when they do this theyll realise that theyll need to do a great deal more then have the right to run themselves – with all the money coming from the rest of the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    That’s the problem davidp – I think what you suggest sounds very reasonable – but as soon as some people hear that some Maori in some area may be in a majority and get some say over their own things and the necks start to turn bright red. Of course Maori should be responsible for their own problems, as long as they don’t get any power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Following that logic leads to civil war.

    Oh Jeff83, you are so so much smarter than the rest of us, would you please just tell us all how we should be thinking….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Viking2 at 12.12:

    Binney has been an academic advocate for the Tuhoi. To cite her as justification for giving the Tuhoi self-government is a bit of a circular argument. Binney has cited the separate parliament of Scotland and autonomous Catalonia in Spain as precedents for self-government for Tuhoi. She has called these “ethnic enclaves”.

    In an interview with Kim Hill, Binnie (who I think was at one stage a member of the Waitangi Commission) conceded that border areas of the Tuhoi border issues may have been in conflict with other tribes. So the area is a little indistinct. So maybe Bro. Key is about to give Tuhoi rule over some neighbouring iwis’ territory.

    Binney in the interview said people must accept there would be two or more accounts of historical incidents. She seemed to be saying oral history should be offset against written history. Yet she used printed books to carry her message, of course.

    However, you can’t blame Tuhoi for what they are going to get. You can blame the Government. This will be another sell-out by Bro. Key to the 2 per cent Maori Party.

    It surely is a precedent for some self-government for the South Island, perhaps even as part of Australia.

    As for Pete George at 1.15:

    …the necks start to turn bright red…

    Anyone to the right of you is a red neck, eh, Pete? Bit racist don’t you think Pete? Strange how liberals rear up at racist terms that it would be shame to use here, but resort to derogatory racist terms to describe whites they disagree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Barry 1:10 pm,

    Well said, Barry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Ok Jack, can you suggest a non-derogatory term for people that keep trashing Maori for not achieving anything for themselves and then trash them when they use the system to try to do something for themselves?

    Anyway, redneck and rightie are not the same thing.

    The great error of the treaty process is that people actually believe that it will solve all of maori’s problems.

    Who believes that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Pete:

    Why do you need a derogatory term for those you argue with? Meet argument with argument.

    But calling someone a redneck or honkie is as racist as using racist terms for non-whites. The fact that I can’t comfortably use those terms for non-whites but can use the words “redneck” and “honkie” tells you something about the grip that PC-ism has on us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Ok Jack, can you suggest a non-derogatory term for people that keep trashing Maori for not achieving anything for themselves and then trash them when they use the system to try to do something for themselves?

    Way to generalise all maori genius – and you allude to others being racist! Not all maori are unable to achieve anything for themselves….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Bevan, in your 2.01 post, is it Pete George you are accusing of generalising Maori. I don’t know who Pete’s talking about when he says:

    …people that keep trashing Maori for not achieving anything for themselves ..

    Who are the people you are talking about Pete? Names…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Ummm Jack – I quoted a passage from Pete’s post, thats what my comment refers to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    In the 1800s it was the Poms who did the “scorched earth” things and all the rest of the big bad things these poor wee innocents whinge about.

    Let the bastards make their claims against the bloody Poms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    MT-TInman at 7.38:

    …In the 1800s it was the Poms who did the “scorched earth” things and all the rest of the big bad things these poor wee innocents whinge about.

    Not so in the Tuhoi case… by then it was colonial warfare run by settlers for settlers.

    However, much of the fighting was done by other tribes. Perhaps they should help the Govt in any reparations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kiki (425 comments) says:

    What wrongs will be created when this wrong is righted?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    Tuhoe are not innocents. The tribe aided and abetted Te Kooti. They were warned and land was confiscated.
    There were some other acts that are justified in claims, but those that use the works of Judith Binney, like Viking2, to claim that the Tuhoe are victims have their heads so far up their arses they can’t see the bull shit.

    Learn about NZ history, but don’t read about it from history revisionists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Scott Hamilton (298 comments) says:

    ‘Tuhoe are not innocents. The tribe aided and abetted Te Kooti. They were warned and land was confiscated.’

    Brian, if you read Binney, or any other historian for that matter, you might learn that the Ureweras were invaded and swathes of Tuhoe land were confiscated in 1866 – that is, two years before Te Kooti even launched his war. The Crown used the slaying of the vicar Karl Volkner, in which Tuhoe had no part (the act was carried out by Whakatohea led by Pai Marire missionaries from Tainui and Taranaki country), as a justification for the invasion and confiscation. In 1866 Te Kooti was still a prisoner on Chatham Island. I defy anyone here to explain why Tuhoe should have had their villages burned and 181,000 hectares of their land taken as punishment for an act they had no connection with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    Jack5 (1678) Says:
    April 23rd, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    MT-TInman at 7.38:

    …In the 1800s it was the Poms who did the “scorched earth” things and all the rest of the big bad things these poor wee innocents whinge about.

    Not so in the Tuhoi case… by then it was colonial warfare run by settlers for settlers.

    Wrong again.

    NZ was a Pom colony so no matter where the participants resided the ones on the side of the gods were Poms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Of all the historic grievances (and anyone who thinks there is no justified grievance should read history books on what happened) this is probably the most complex and difficult.

    I understand that this comment is well intentioned, David, (and you would do well to apply the same sensitivities to Palestinians) but the fact is that it need only be as complex and difficult as we make it. The simple fact is that it is we European Kiwis who have to open our eyes to a new way of being. Most of your commentators not only have no understanding of what this entails, they are afraid of it. Old habits (including the arrogance of colonialism and racism) die hard.

    All that needs to be done is to ask Tuhoe, with the one caveat that we all remain citizens of the one country, what would suit them best.

    But we should also keep in mind that maybe we will, one day, have to give up our sovereignty over a small part of our land. It’s about the size of Israel, isn’t it? Is the principle of one country really worth a fight to the death?

    [DPF: Only those who have no idea how complex an area is say things like oh it is simple - give Tuhoe everything they want, so long as they remain citizens.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    Scott, claiming Binny as a reference to Tuhoe, is like asking Joe Karam if David Bain is innocent.
    Let’s make this clear for you.

    Whakatohea murdered Volkner. When the Government forces (which included Maori) hunted down the murderers, they fled to the southern Urewera.
    Tuhoe were involved. It was not the entire tribe aiding however, but some. When lands were confiscated from Whakatohea, it appears that land that belonged to Tuhoe were confiscated also. This is in the treaty claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, and looks like it was an error that hopefully will see Tuhoe get recompence for that.

    No it’s the invasion of Ureweras in May 1868 as another force chased (Again Maori and Settler Miltia), another murderous horde of Hauhau up from Wairoa, to Lake Waikaremoana. It’s at this stage and when Te Kooti appeared that I say Tuhoe are not innocents. If you read my earlier post, you will see that I do say that there are some justified claims.

    Binnly is a revisionist. She like Belich pick their facts very selectively to convey a bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Scott Hamilton (298 comments) says:

    Brian, you might have more credibility if you spelt the name of the person you’re criticising properly, and if you got the basic historical timeline right. It doesn’t ‘appear’ that Tuhoe lands were confiscated in 1866 – they were confiscated then, and the confiscation had nothing at all to do with Tuhoe support for Te Kooti, since Te Kooti had not even begun his war. You obviously didn’t know what you were talking about when you tried to link the confiscation to Tuhoe support for Te Kooti. You’re now claiming that Crown forces invaded the Ureweras in May 1868, in pursuit of Te Kooti. Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. In May 1868, Te Kooti was still on Chatham Island, where he was imprisoned in 1865 after being convicted without a trial of supporting Pai Marire rebels on the East Coast. Te Kooti didn’t escape from Chatham Island until *July* 1868. You claim to know more than distinguished historians like Binney and Belich, and yet can’t even get the most basic historical facts right.
    I’ve blogged about Binney’s career and her contributions to historical method here:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-we-need-judith-binney.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    Scott, you do not know me to make the claim I do not know what I am talking about. It’s you who has your facts wrong, so stop being a retard.

    Do you know what the Hauhau were about? You do understand that they are not Ringatu? There is TWO courses of action that lead to government actions in the Urewea in the 1860’s.
    This is why I said in the above post “It’s at this stage and when Te Kooti appeared ” Unfortunately I can not underline the AND.
    Your interpretation on what I have typed is very poor, and accusing me of getting history wrong is WRONG itself. I doubled checked my facts before my last post. (Tuhoe’s first land confiscations were the Whakatohea punishments – read the Tuhoe treaty claim report, it’s online if you don’t belive me).

    I see you’re a Binney Supporter then, then there is no point going on about this with you. Te Kooti was a murder, a slaver a rapist and hated by many Maori tribes for the crimes he commited against them. I have family members who are Maori and follow loosly the tennets of Ringatu. I do not pass judgment on that, but I do not forget the cold bloody murder of hundreds of not thousands by the orders of Te Kooti.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott Hamilton (298 comments) says:

    “It’s at this stage and when Te Kooti appeared ”

    But he didn’t appear in May 1868. He was on Chatham Island in May 1868. If you can’t get the most basic facts right, not to mention spell the name of the historian you’re trying to query properly, then you’re not likely to be taken very seriously, Brian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Brian Marshall (202 comments) says:

    I’m not going there Scott. So I’ll just clarify what the facts are because you didn’t get what I was trying to convey.
    TWO actions- Two separate actions.

    One involving the Hauhau and a later action involving the Ringatu (te Kooti). The Hauhau had launched attacks on Maori and Pakeha settlements killing and plundering. (This is where te Kooti came under suspicion of assiting the Hauhau). The Hauhau retreated up from the east coast into the Urewera and were chased by a combined Maori and Settler Miltia. Those are the facts and they are correct. I double checked them. They had sanctuary from the Tuhoe and Tuhoe were involved as active hauhau.

    Questioning me because of a spelling mistake is very poor form and you look like an idiot. Stick to the facts and the facts are truth not revisionist interpretion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote