This entry was posted on Sunday, May 29th, 2011 at 12:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Great point by point smack down by Brash to that idiot kid who wrote the piece the previous week.In it he showed quite decisively that far from being a racist he is in fact probably one of the very few truly principled opponents of it in NZ.
DPF, Yes. good Brash piece.
It will make him feel better, but will not change matters.
The media (especially TV “know-alls, who know little) have already set their knives to the stone in anticipation.
Would be nice to see some integrity.
The kid had obviously never read the speech and comes from a family of professional Maoris so Don is wasting his time trying to turn around the thinking of the poor girl. I am just surprised that the Sunday Socialist Trash printed his reply.
Brash’s Orewa speech was designed to gain support from conservative pakeha and that is what it did for a while. Brash claimed some NZers were receiving special treatment because of their colour, though unable to produce any examples. It was shameful dog whistle politics.
If he has since softened his position then perhaps he has learned something useful.
In the largest poll I saw about the Orewa speech (around 40,000 people) Brash had the support of about 90%. That is a shit load of conservatives. And only an idiot would believe that Maori do not get special treatment from the government.
Hopefully if Don should get into a position of power he will dispense with the Childrens Commissioner and reverse the silly grievance nonsense about the origins of Maori Child Killing that is to be fostered by our current administration.
It is not only college aged kids who are completely brownwashed ( an accidental typo, but so apt I am leaving it as is).
I had the “pleasure” of hearing the maiden speech of Gareth Hughes of the Green Party. He said at one point in his speech that sovereignty had been taken from Maori in 1840 “at the point of a gun”. I managed – just – to obey convention and not interject in a maiden speech.
Afterwards I asked him if he actually knew any New Zealand history. I was astounded to be told he had a degree in it, from Victoria University no less. He listened politely when I told him that there were no British soldiers – not one – in New Zealand in 1840, and that the Maori population were not only armed as well as the settlers, but were about 10 or 20 times more numerous. I decided to stick to incontrovertible fact and not go into such debateable questions as who wanted the treaty the most, but he only had place in his mind for what he had been taught.
When we have university graduates who have been fed and uncritically accepted a diet of that upon which mushrooms thrive we all have one helluva problem. But a heroic try by Don nonetheless.
David, you are a menace to all left-thinking people. Government educational institutions must not be allowed to let inconvenient truths get in the way of the officially-sanctioned national creation myth.
The only way ‘Maori’ (who ever they are??) in New Zealand, might change their attitudes is to shame them and press home the point how well ‘Maori’ have done in Australia. They are the ones that understand the dictum ‘ a fair days pay for a fair days work’. Moreover, Maori have carved ther own niche in society in Oz … have integrated there and they should be proud of what they have achieved, and good luck to them too. Their whanau back in NZ could learn a thing or two from them.
P M @ 8 32,
Sadly many of the whanau, as you so kindly put it, are trapped here as they have been naughty, sorry been caught and convicted by those nasty colonialists who forced males, not the biological father, to kill the young by some other male (the current shag sharing the beneficence of those same oppressors) by beating them as missionaries some 160 years ago or some other inconvenient barrier to moving across the ditch.
Its all our fault dammit.
The uniformity of opinion from the commentators on this blog, while not surprising, is a worrying sign of the siloing of our political discussions. It won’t be long until we have a Fox News or MSNBC of our own so that people can retreat into their own political school and not be bothered by such things as objectivity, balance and reason. The gloating, self-satisfied tone of the comments is also pretty sad- it is like a preacher being satisfied by gaining the agreement of the choir.
I disagree with many of the posters here. First, for those slamming a young girl for articulating her political views- shame on you. I doubt whether you would have had the guts or ability to write a similar article at her age. You may not agree with her views, but have the decency to show her a basic level of respect rather than resorting to name calling, which frankly is beneath someone of her age, let alone yours. Criticising her for parroting rhetoric is also a little rich coming from this crowd.
Secondly, to Mr Garrett, in my humble opinion you are an embarrassment to the history of our legislature, and for you to criticise another member for lack of education is laughable.
Now, getting to Dr Brash’s column.
“Ngata was the first Maori to earn a double degree. He spent his life trying to convince his people to follow in his footsteps and not to give in to the temptations of welfare. Sadly, few listened, and after the creation of Labour’s welfare state, many Maori chose dependency over independence.”
This statement is either disingenuous or incredibly ignorant. To suggest that Maori, having been marginalised by land confiscations and struggling to adjust to Pakeha systems of governance, property and economics, “chose dependency rather than independence” is both wrong and highly insulting. I am a proud Pakeha who used to agree with the “one rule for all” stance espoused by Brash. This was BEFORE I educated myself on New Zealand history. An open minded and honest reading of our history has led to me to better understand Maori social problems, and respect a constructive approach to rebalancing New Zealand society to address the 140 years that Maori were systematically marginalised. This is not a matter of blame or grievance, as Mr Harawira and his ilk like to claim, but instead is about recognising that injustices have occurred, and finding fair and pragmatic way of addressing them. I respect the Prime Minister and his government for working constructively with Dr Sharples and Ms Turia, and hope that they continue to do so in their next term.
As for Dr Brash claiming the mana of Sir Apriana Ngata- Ha! If you actually look at Ngata’s achievements they include: making public money available for the development of Maori land, public grants for Maori educational, social and cultural activities; and the establishment of a Board of Ethnological Research to finance an investigation and recording of Maori oral and material culture (King, 2003)- all moves that would no doubt be derided by the likes of Mr Garret today as “political correctness gone mad”.