Critic on Louis Crimp

August 20th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

of has done a controversial and interesting profile of Louis Crimp, based on a two hour interview with him. I found the article fascinating – both for the archaic views on Maori – but also for what they call the sympathethic side of Crimp.

“The Maori culture before the white man came, they were Stone Age people. Each tribe used to be at war with the next tribe, and if they beat one tribe they’d kill all the males in it, and eat them. And I’ve got it somewhere that the females, they’d put them in a separate stockade, and they drove spikes through their feet so they couldn’t run away, and they kept them there to have sex with until they’re ready to be eaten. So they’re sort of like a deep freeze for food and sex.”

The tales of cannibalism are well documented, but the spiking women’s feet is news to me.

However 200 years ago, many bad things happened. The US had slaves. Women were almost chattels. That is not to say that all cultures were equally good or bad. But the key thing is most cultures have evolved.

Ah, those were the days. Mr Crimp followed up by saying that although Maori in Invercargill are “anglicised” and “part of our community”, Maori people in South Auckland are “still savages, on welfare or in jail”. A few years ago, he came up with a plan for making some cash off the people who shared these views, by setting up an all-white retirement village in Invercargill to lure people down from South Auckland. “I couldn’t proclaim it being white, but somehow or another I would say that it was a predominant Anglo-Saxon society, you know.” But he couldn’t secure the land, and the plan fell through.

Oh Good God. White enclaves. I suspect Crimp’s views could only be formed in an area like Invercargill (not meaning people in Invercargill are racists, but they have relatively few Maori there). If, like me, you went to a school with many Maori, went to a university with many Maori, have worked in jobs with Maori colleagues – you know not to apply stereotypes to individuals.

Te Reo is Mr Crimp’s kryptonite. His aversion to the language is strong enough for him to pay for his five-year-old granddaughter to attend a private school in a failed attempt to shield her from having to learn it. He also cancelled his long-running subscription to the Southland Times after they included a single Maori word in their crossword.

That is pretty nuts.

Mr Crimp has made millions through his various property ventures, and has gained many supporters in Invercargill for his charitable donations, including over $1 million each to the SPCA and the St John Ambulance Service. In an attempt to see the other side of , I asked him about his reasons for these donations.

Mr Crimp’s philanthropy began when his lawyer told him he should “get out and spend” his millions before he died. But this was no easy task. Mr Crimp says that from an early age he has was forced to “watch [his] pennies” — “I was the oldest boy in Southland who had a paper run, at the age of 16, because we were poor, my family.” Having visited his house, I can confirm that Mr Crimp is not prone to extravagant spending – while he lives in a large house, his furniture is old-fashioned, and his TV is smaller than you’d find in most student flats.

After his lawyer’s comments, Mr Crimp “started dishing it out to people I think who needed it.” He was attracted to the SPCA, “because most of their work is done by volunteers. It’s the same with the St John ambulance…Yeah, there’s a lot of people who do some good in this world without pay.”

As I read the profile, I actually feel a bit sorry for Crimp. It must be pretty miserable to be so fearful of Maori.

Mr Crimp’s generous side is forced to sit next to his habit of saying incredibly offensive things. One of Mr Crimp’s stories demonstrates this duality. He lends “money out to poor suffering people sometimes” at a special low-interest rate. He loaned $7000 to a Maori woman who needed a lung cancer operation, but it turned out “it was all bullshit, she wasn’t sick at all”. Mr Crimp was understandably aggrieved, but does himself no favours whatsoever by describing the woman as “just a cheat, a big black Maori cheat”.

After that comment, he relented a little: “She’s had a pretty rough life… Yeah I’m feeling sorry for her already, she hasn’t got a job, she’s got a boyfriend who beats the hell out of her, she hasn’t got any money, oh God.”

Interviewing Mr Crimp made me think of Levi Hawkins, aka the “Nek Minnit” guy. He’s a real, multi-faceted human being, yet we all essentially know him as an amusing dancing bear, a sideshow. When he gets approached on the street, people ask him to say his catchphrase. By seeking out Louis Crimp solely for the purpose of getting outrageous quotes, I was guilty of the same dehumanisation. On the other hand, some of the quotes are pretty damn funny. It’s a difficult balancing act.

I think the article gets the balance about right.

I asked Mr Crimp about his views on gay marriage, secretly hoping for some more controversy-laden denouncements. But his prejudices against Maori don’t seem to extend to the rainbow community. “I couldn’t care less. If Sir Elton John can work it, and write beautiful songs and stuff…” 

What a good attitude! I think very few people are really worked up against gay marriage. Most people are fine with it.

He paused. “Are you a fruit?”

I mentally searched through my encyclopedia of 1950s slang, past “buffoon (medical diagnosis)” and “colour, person of”, and realise he’s asking whether I’m gay. “No.” “Neither am I.” As if to underscore his acceptance of all different lifestyles, Crimp continued: “I got a nephew that is, and he’s a nice guy, he’s tall dark and handsome, and clever. I remember I was with him one time over in a pub here, and I said to him: ‘That woman second from the end on the pokie machines, she’s a hooker.’ ‘Oh, go and get her out uncle, we’ll fuck her.’ I said, ‘Oh I thought you were a fruit?’ He says ‘Yeah but… both ways,’ he said.”

Heh, not sure his nephew will appreciate that story being told :-)

Mr Crimp told me he has been divorced for 15 years, and noted that “now people don’t get married, they just have partners.” He then demonstrated his trademark tact and diplomacy with a series of questions. “Have you got a partner?” Yep. “How long have you had her?” Three years. “Oh. Does she want to get married?” Yeah, eventually. “Do you want to marry her?” Yeah, maybe in a few years. “But not at the moment.” No, not right now. I’m too young. “So you don’t love her. You just use her for shagging practice.”

Classic.

Crimp’s Maori counterpart, Hone Harawira, is known for making outrageous generalisations about a particular race, yet interacting normally with people of that race in person. I get the feeling Crimp is similar. It’s like the way Otago students can make harsh generalisations (“Anyone who votes for John Key is a moron”/“Socialists are the spawn of Satan”) and yet have close friends from across the political spectrum.

Crimp as the counterpart of Hone. A bit harsh on Hone.

Overall, the 79-year-old Crimp gives the impression that he has unfinished business, and that he just doesn’t care what people think about him any more. “I want to wind things up and piss off, retire, you know. And if I could do something for Invercargill, that’s get rid of the ILT (Invercargill Licensing Trust). 

Now that sounds worthwhile.

And if I could do something for NZ, [it would be to] have the Maoris be just like … all New Zealanders.”

Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.

Tags: , ,

120 Responses to “Critic on Louis Crimp”

  1. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    Agree with your analysis. But why wast time on Crimp?

    I suspect that an overwhelming majority of New Zealand has had a tummy full of the treaty gravy scam.

    But to accord Crimp creibility by this sort of coverage is just plain silly. Best response? Ignore him and his.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.

    Not according to Hone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Leaving aside David Farrar’s insufferably liberal perspective on the Maori problem, Crimp’s views strike a chord with many NZers who perceive NZ’s unhealthy preoccupation with Maori to be a major negative in terms of our social condition.

    John Key, who unnecessarily drew the Maori Party into government, and therefore raised racism stakes to unprecedented levels in NZ politics, has been a major disappointment to non-Maori, (or the rest of NZ).

    Key’s weakness on the issue is why so many productive NZers of all races have left (for good) to live in Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    There is no place for Crimp in a civilised society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. MT_Tinman (3,204 comments) says:

    Basically Crimp is a mirror image of your average Maori “activist”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The ILT is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “There is no place for Crimp in a civilised society.”

    I know, lets send him and his ilk to concentration camps and then gas them..!!!

    You Hamnida, with your psychotic intolerance for views outside of the “approved” left liberal political spectrum, are more of a threat to our civilisation than Crimp will ever be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Lloyd (125 comments) says:

    How do comments like ‘I suspect that an overwhelming majority of New Zealand has had a tummy full of the treaty gravy scam’ and ‘many NZers who perceive NZ’s unhealthy preoccupation with Maori to be a major negative in terms of our social condition’ differ from Louis Crimp?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    “His aversion to the language is strong enough for him to pay for his five-year-old granddaughter to attend a private school in a failed attempt to shield her from having to learn it. He also cancelled his long-running subscription to the Southland Times after they included a single Maori word in their crossword”

    A hell of a lot of New Zealanders have an aversion to their kids being force-fed Maori language and culture in school. Not to mention the completely new and rewritten versons of New Zealand history (Maori lived at peace and ‘at one with nature’ until the evil White man came..) that seem to have become part of the Cirriculum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – I just think Crimp needs to be educated in New Zealand’s history. In no way did I suggest he should be gassed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    “There is no place for Crimp in a civilised society”

    Yet only yesterday you were loudly cheering on your hero Hone Harawira..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “I just think Crimp needs to be educated in New Zealand’s history.”

    You mean “re-educated” of course.

    Hamnida, you are the forerunner for the executioner squads and government by terror.

    History frequently tells the tale.

    Ask any Cambodian. (for one example)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    Having had the pleasure of meeting a few charming members of the Harawira clan I can wholeheartedly agree with Redbaiter’s assertions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. rg (214 comments) says:

    What Crimp wants is Maori to be treated equally to other NZers, not specially. In other words he wants an end to maori seats, no more low rax rates for Maori business, no special dumbed down entrance track to med school for maori, no race based government policy.
    Why would anyone not want that?
    It is those who support special treatment for Maori simply because they are Maori and for no other reason that are the racists.
    Moari have done a very good job of rewriting history and saying that Maori were some harmonious society that cared fro the environment.
    Truth is the opposite, they killed and ate their enemy, they kept slaves etc. They willingly sold land for muskets so that they could slaughter their enemy more easily.
    I have seen no evidence that maori pre european had any conservation strategies at all.

    If maori are New Zealanders David then why are they seperated and distinguished from other New Zealanders and treated differently?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chuck Bird (4,895 comments) says:

    “What a good attitude! I think very few people are really worked up against gay marriage. Most people are fine with it.”

    If you really beleive that you would be happy with a Voters Veto if the bill passes all its readings?

    The cost could easily be saved is the MPs stopped acting like school children with childish banter in place of debate. I wonder how much an hour Parliament costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (8,522 comments) says:

    I suspect Crimp is viewd with fear and trepidation in the “beltway” as his opinions get wide circulation and his money means influence.

    The political elites fear challenge to the cosy “consensus” that they seek to impose on the electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    I think it is also important to remember that Mr Crimp is 79 years old.
    An interview with anyone from that era or generation is unlikely to get the type of ‘PC” or “Touchy-Feely” answers most of the brainwashed younger generation would give if asked about race-relations in this country.
    So rather than slamming him as some inbred redneck from Invercargill the writer could take into account that persons from our Grandfathers generation, like it or not, tended to speak their minds…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I am surprised that it’s the 21st Century and people on this blog are supporting Crimp.

    He’s and out and out racist.

    I see even Michael Laws has started spelling Whanganui correctly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,387 comments) says:

    SPIKING THE FEET. Old Taumutu Maori tell stories that Maori war parties used to come in towards the Rakaia when it was in flood, and drive the local people up against the impassable river where they were killed and eaten. Some had their feet tendons cut, so they couldn’t go anywhere…a horrible hopeless plight…a way to keep them alive and fresh as a food source.

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

    DPF – you are so wrong on your last sentance…..’Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.’

    Take Harawira. He doesnt consider himself a New Zealander (unless there is tax payer money involved). He has said several times that he first a member of his tribe (whatever its name is), then a Maori and lastly a New Zealander.

    Like Crimp – I have no doubt that while this sort of anti-New Zealander attitude exists then we will have endless challenges trying to get the people of this country to think of themseves as one people – and consequently we will spend endless millions trying to keep the parties happy.

    If you saw the interview on (I cant recall if it was The Nation or Q & A) yesterday you would have seen two maori trying to justify why they should get some money from you and I for using water – while they jumped thru contortions making sure that ‘ownership’ wasnt part of the claim (because that brings liability…..)

    That sort of attitude isnt about being New Zealanders – its about trying to con the other lot.

    From what I read of that interview Crimp is a far more level headed person that Harawira is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.”

    Bollocks. Tell that to harawira , sharples , turia , and the rest of the separatists .Louis Crimp is a throughly good man..all power to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “He’s and out and out racist.”

    You are a totalitarian socialist who constantly advocates for tyranny.

    Give me Crimp any day over such as you, brainwashed barbarians who have been behind the most murderous regimes in recent human history.

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

    ‘the completely new and rewritten versons of New Zealand history (Maori lived at peace and ‘at one with nature’ until the evil White man came..)’

    I see this complaint about NZ history being rewritten a lot on right-wing blogs, but the complainers never explain which texts they object to? Which scholar of pre-contact Maori society has been guilty of misrepresentation, longknives? I’m not aware of any of the major figures in the field denying features of pre-contact society like social stratification, fragmentation into iwi and hapu, and inter-iwi violence. In fact, I think some of the key works in the field in recent decades – Ballara’s Iwi: the dynamics of Maori inter-tribal organisation, for example – emphasise these things, in a way that older works did not.

    It was older, Victorian ethnographers who sometimes tended to come up with patronising pictures of Maori as noble savages living in static, unstratified societies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    There is some pretty big differences between Crimp and Harawira

    1) Crimp worked and made money – Harawira never has
    2) Crimp is now taking that money and trying – and sometimes failing – to do some good with it. Harawira just wants to take, and take and take

    The reason the views of Crimp get traction is exemplified by the curernt water grab by Maori. In the Treaty they agreed to cede authority to the Crown. They (via the Maori Council and Waitangi Tribunal) are trying to back out of that by saying everything that begins to show some potential as a revenue stream is taonga. The ridiculous thing is that they are even saying that the act of runnning the water through a turbine is “converting” and “using” it when clearly it is not. No water is consumed or diverted in that exercise.

    I firmly believe water is such an important component of life that control of it should not vest in private hands. Control, allocation and use of it should be vested in a public body. That’s not to say that such control and allocation isn’t in need to change, but putting control of it into a private and demonstrably avaricious body as the Maori Council or any hapu/iwi is cause for a great deal of concern.

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

    And while we’re excoriating the slavery and cannibalism which were undoubted features of many Pacific societies in the pre-contact period and in the nineteenth century, let’s not forget the role that certain white folks, including a a number of Kiwi Pakeha, played in perpetuating these practices. Coley Patteson, the first archbishop of Melanesia, spent the last years of his life campaigning for the British and New Zealand governments to act Anglo-Saxons who were scouring the Pacific for slaves and, in some cases, for heads:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/white-headhunters.html

    Here’s a quote from the report of Captain John Moresby, who was sent on his ship HMS Basilisk to investigate Patteson’s claims:

    ‘One lad from the Solomon group told me, with truth in his face, that he had seen his own brother’s head cut off by white men belonging to a schooner that ran down his canoe…Another…had seen five islanders beheaded by the crew of a brig…The heads of the murdered men were doubtless to be used in bartering for slaves or sandalwood, with chiefs who rate their greatness by the number of skulls they possess. It is difficult to believe such atrocities were common – but the evidence compels belief.’

    History has plenty of nastiness to go around, unfortunately…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    He has said several times that he first a member of his tribe (whatever its name is), then a Maori and lastly a New Zealander.

    I’m not a Hatfield fan (far from it) but is that such a big deal? Asked a similar question I’d say I’m Yorkshire > English > British.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton with his usual academic styled apologies for liars and racists

    Your examples are outliers. Violence and barbarism was endemic in pre-European NZ.

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

    ‘I think it is also important to remember that Mr Crimp is 79 years old.
    An interview with anyone from that era or generation is unlikely to get the type of ‘PC” or “Touchy-Feely” answers’

    I don’t think that most Pakeha of Crimp’s age think that Maori living in Auckland are all savages, or that the Maori Language Act was an abomination. Crimp’s ideology is probably much more influenced by some of the folks who hang around his mate John Ansell and the One New Zealand Foundation. One NZ publishes work by Kerry Bolton, who is perhaps NZ’s best known neo-Nazi, and Martin Doutre, the advocate of the Celtic NZ theory and an admitted Holocaust denier and fan of David Irving, on its website. Ansell has credited Doutre with helping ‘educate’ him about NZ history.
    http://books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter/

    Ansell, Doutre et al continually say that their ideas were the norm before ‘PC’ historians came on the scene a few decades ago. The reality is that their fantasies about white people settling NZ thousands of years ago, Maori being wholly responsible for the NZ Wars, and so on do not have any precedent in the work of NZ scholars of the twentieth and nineteenth centuries. They come instead from the contemporary conspiracy theory circuit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Simply unbelievable, even on this blog I would have thought there would be no Crimp supporters. Just goes to show I live in a very different world to the average Kiwiblog contributor.

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

    James Stephenson @ 10.45

    Then I suggest that you go back to Yorkshire and live out your dreams there.

    Or maybe you really meant…”I am of Yorkshire/English descent, but I am a New Zealander now.”

    Hone didnt say he was of Maori descent – or cultureal background (- and of course he has some non maori blood in him.
    Hone’s family name is actually Hatfield – I believe its a good Yorkshire name………….I wonder why Hone doesnt lay claim to his yorkshire heritage…)

    Hone was very pointed about his status – he put being a New Zealander last.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “Just goes to show I live in a very different world to the average Kiwiblog contributor”

    Yes, one where freedom of political expression is held in utter contempt and subjugated by evil left wing doctrines designed to deliver socialist tyranny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton- I suggest you speak to any primary or secondary school student and ask them what they have “learned in school” about Maori. The concept of the ‘Noble Savage’ is alive and well in our education system…

    As for History on a more academic (Tertiary) level- It has been a while since I was at University but I do distinctly recall a History lecturer (Pakeha- wearing a Greenstone Pendant) bursting into tears as he told the tale of those “racist” New Zealand Police and their shoot-out with the “Peace-loving” and “completely innocent” Rua Kenana…

    Even as a young (and left-leaning in those days!) University student I could smell the bullshit a mile away.

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

    ‘Violence and barbarism was endemic in pre-European NZ’

    As it was in eighteenth century America, where a vast number of people were kept in slavery at the point of a gun, and parts of eighteenth century Britain like Highland Scotland and Ireland, where the English displaced and oppressed enormous groups of people. What’s your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. simonway (387 comments) says:

    You mean “re-educated” of course.

    Of course that’s what she meant, Red. You caught us: what all of us on the left really want is a network of forced-labour camps to send our political enemies to, so that they can be indoctrinated with Correct Thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    So I guess DPF sits to the extreme Left of the average Kiwiblog contributor.

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

    longknives, if you make a bold claim about the rewriting of history you ought to be be able to back it up with a reference or two, rather than ask those who doubt you to go out and do your research for you.

    I was hoping for something a bit more specific than an unnamed lecturer you remember from university. And the anecdote you mention is irrelevant, because you were making claims about pre-contact Maori society, not post-contact conflict between Maori and Pakeha.

    Seriously, have you read a single scholarly text about pre-contact Maori society? Ballara, Sutton, Groube, Barber, Kirch?
    All I’m asking for is a single text from recent decades which claims that pre-contact society was unstratified, united, and peaceful. You won’t find one, because there aren’t any.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    And strangely I don’t recall anybody ever mentioning the Boyd Massacre – It certainly wasn’t worth a mention in the New Zealand History papers I took..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    Martin Te Heuheu-

    “If you guys hadn’t come to New Zealand, it’s highly likely that Maori wouldn’t have survived. We were stone age. We were illiterate, and that’s the truth. We’d just about eaten everything there was to eat; the moa was already extinct, and we were eating each other. We would have killed each other off. Now we have the best of everything in the world. While Maori are running around screaming that we’ve been ripped off [by the European] they’re taking advantage of high-tech this and high-tech that. They’re demanding millions of dollars in compensation, plus apologies, and white liberals are sucked into this bullshit.”

    http://truebluenz.com/2011/09/04/margaret-mutu-of-english-scottish-descent-another-pseudo-maori-scamming-the-nz-taxpayer/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    I think we need some perspective here. Are you really suggesting Mr Hamilton that Western civilisation was of the same level as Maori civilisation in the 19th century? Is that really your view?

    Unfortunately many people don’t seem to be able to put any proportion on things. In pre-European Maori times if you were of a different tribe you could be killed and eaten with impunity. That changed under Western civilisation.

    I just wish we loved our own civilisation more. We loved our own country more. We have pride in our forebears. I think Western civilisation was great. I just wish we were not so intent on dismantling it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “You caught us: what all of us on the left really want is a network of forced-labour camps to send our political enemies to, so that they can be indoctrinated with Correct Thought.”

    Of course that is your intent. The situation is only changed because you have learned from past failures and these days apply much more sophisticated and incremental methods.

    The objective is still the same and always will be the same with you amoral and mentally diseased left wing utopians, where anything is permissible as long as it is perceived as eventually adding to the greater good.

    Why do you think sports people and other prominent people are chastised and sent for re-training if they make public comments perceived as racist?

    It is all about warning the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Martin Gibson (247 comments) says:

    The story about women’s feet being spiked to the ground and tendons being cut to prevent escape can be found in Prof Paul Moon’s excellent book “That Horrid Practice”. It puts kapa haka in a whole new perspective.

    In the best traditions of Voltaire (“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”), I think it is healthy to hear people say aloud what many think or say behind their hands. Unless we do away with the offence valve that seems to exist in New Zealand we will never be the promised land of peace, and Maori youth will continue to be given a ready excuse for under-performance.

    As I have said before, a useful Maori word for white folks to learn is “Harakiraki” which means “inconsistency” or “hypocracy”.

    eg:

    “Hone Harawire whining about white mofos raping and pillaging Maori land is harakiraki, when you remember that the yogi-bear-shouldered mofo is Ngapuhi, who did far more raping and pillaging of other Maori than all white mofos put together”.

    It’s easy to find other examples, and fun too.

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

    ‘I think Western civilisation was great’

    I think Socrates and Shakespeare are great. I’m not so keen on, say, the Atlantic slave trade.

    But the most inspiring proponents of the best parts of Western civilisation I know live in Tonga. I’ve just helped them launch a book and film.
    tonganark.net
    http://www.readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/the-ark-premieres-dogs-eye-view.html

    And guess what? Tonga, which has the highest per capita number of PhD grads in the world and teaches Greek in its schools, was never colonised. So much for the necessity of conquest at palangi hands…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Redbaiter (9,098 comments) says:

    “What’s your point?”

    The usual. In spite of your vapid attempts to swathe yourself in academic respectability, your credibility is zero and put into even more jeopardy by your predilection to pervert history with cherry picked examples that suit your own political ends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. James Stephenson (2,191 comments) says:

    Or maybe you really meant…”I am of Yorkshire/English descent, but I am a New Zealander now.”

    No, if I’d meant that, then I’d have said that. I’m not and never will be a New Zealander, I just live here. I married a new Zealander and my children are New Zealanders, but I’m English and that’s all there is to it.

    It’s Hatfield’s obvious belief that anyone non-Maori isn’t a “real” New Zealander, that makes him a racist. No different than if I were to express the same opinion about the English-ness of the Caribean community in London.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Would be good to hear from Dr Fisi on this topic.

    Anecdotally, I have come across many Tongans with PhDs. One guy I went to school with, two that I was with at Uni, another two at work, and Dr Fisi on this blog.

    What could it be? Cultural desire to learn, discipline at home, public schooling in Tonga, scholarships from Tonga to study in New Zealand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Lipo (229 comments) says:

    Rather than dismissing Loius Crimp’s views out of hand, perhaps it would be more valuable to look into why he has those views. What has happened in his life that lead him to formulate the position he has. I am sure he has not made it up in his head. Has he selectively processed information that gives him a one sided view of New Zealand.
    I am sure he was not born a racist. What events affected him to form such strong opinions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    “Tonga, which has the highest per capita number of PhD grads in the world and teaches Greek in its schools, was never colonised. So much for the necessity of conquest at palangi hands…”

    Ummm-well Tonga did become Christian. Previously they were headhunters. So maybe there is a little part of Western civilisation, in this case the faith of Western missionaries, that have done something for the people of that country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    Mr Hamilton
    The tone of the nz history on air website definitely downplays the impact of the musket wars
    The consensus among historians such as king etc is for a death toll of 25000 as a starting point and as many as 60000 at nz history its up to 20000
    when nz history talks of the treaty it down plays the holocaust of the previous generation as a reason for sighing the treaty

    http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief
    “Growing numbers of British migrants arrived in New Zealand in the late 1830s, and there were plans for extensive settlement. Around this time there were large-scale land transactions with Māori, unruly behaviour by some settlers and signs that the French were interested in annexing New Zealand. The British government was initially unwilling to act, but it eventually realised that annexing the country could protect Māori, regulate British subjects and secure commercial interests.”

    According to this the treaty was to protect the poor maori from nasty settlers At the signing of the treaty the European population was around 2000 mostly those exploiting the natural resources like timber and whale oil and not settlers at all
    Maori were busy selling the same land to multiple purchases that they did not own. Still held vast numbers enslaved. Had exported a significant percentage of their population as smoked heads until it was baned by the governor in Sydney. The intent was more to subjugate the moari population to law then to protect the moari from nasty whites

    The noble savage is alive and well at nz revisionist history on line this is what the colonial apologist are teaching our kids

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. my 2 cents (1,091 comments) says:

    I couldn’t really understand why you posted this and then 2/3rds down I found that Mr Crimp had nice things to say about homosexual lifestyle, must keep the meme up :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    A previous posting on Kiwiblog (anon):

    Life of a Maori Slave 1827
    1832 – Earle, A. A Narrative of a Nine Months’ Residence in New Zealand, in 1827
    The scene I have just described brings into consideration the subject of slavery, as it now exists in New Zealand. That slavery should be the custom of savage nations and cannibals, is not a cause of wonder: they are the only class of human beings it ought to remain with. Here slavery assumes its most hideous shape! Every one they can effect a seizure of in an enemy’s country becomes the slave of the captors. Chiefs are never made prisoners; they either fight to the last, or are killed on the spot, and their heads are preserved (by a peculiar method) as trophies. Children are greatly prized: these they bring to their dwellings, and they remain slaves for life. Upon the number of slaves a chief can muster he takes his rank as a man of wealth and consequence in society; and the only chance these wretched beings have of being released from their miseries, is their master getting into a rage, and murdering them without further ceremony.
    “On entering a village, a stranger instantly discovers which portion of its inhabitants are the slaves, though both the complexion and the dresses of all are alike. The free Zealander is a joyous, good-humoured looking man, full of laughter and vivacity, and is chattering incessantly; but the slaves have invariably a squalid dejected look; they are never seen to smile, and appear literally half starved. The beauties characteristic of a New Zealander are his teeth and hair: the latter,
    in particular, is his pride and study; but the slaves have their heads half shorn. The male slave is not allowed to marry; and any intercourse with a female, if discovered, is generally punished by death. Never was there a body of men so completely cut off from all society as these poor slaves; they never can count, with certainty, on a single moment of life, as the savage caprice of their master may instantly deprive them of it. If, by chance, a slave should belong to a kind and good master, an accident happening to him, or any of his family, will probably prove equally fatal to the slave, as some are generally sacrificed on the death of a chief.
    Thus these poor slaves are deprived of every hope and stimulus by which all other classes and individuals are animated; no good conduct of theirs towards their master, no attachment to his person or family, no fidelity or long service can ensure kind treatment. If the slave effect his escape to his own part of the country, he is there treated with contempt; and when he dies (if a natural death), his body is dragged to the outside of the village, there to be made sport of by the children, or to furnish food for the dogs! but more frequently his fate is to receive a fatal blow in a fit of passion, and then be devoured by his brutal master! Even the female slaves who, if pretty, are frequently taken as wives by their conquerors, have not a much greater chance of happiness, all being dependent upon the caprice of their owners.”

    http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document?wid=300&page=0&action=null

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. hj (7,033 comments) says:

    Mr Crimp has made millions through his various property ventures,
    ……..
    and these developers claim to succeed by a sort of social acumen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    Yes I was always told that a beach near us was the place the vanquished were taken before having their achilles tendons cut (rocky headlands at either end).

    Kind of nasty eh but brutality towards women, children and weaker males is all over now… well almost

    Putting old man Crimp on the stand like this bores the shit out of me. It’s shooting fish in a barrel, sort of reminiscent of Bowling for Columbine where Moore visited Heston.

    Crimp’s an old dude from a dying generation that distrusts Maoris, and probably Japanese too. And Germans! What never ceases to make me laugh is the outrage comments like his causes when I know for certain his views are widely, widely held.

    It’s kind of pointless hating Maori like Crimpy does because they ain’t going anywhere

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

    ‘Tonga did become Christian. Previously they were headhunters’

    I think you’re thinking about Tanna rather than Tonga when you mention headhunting. Cook was extremely impressed by the complexity and productivity of the Tongan economy – he compared the gardens on Tongatapu to those of Holland – and Tongans, like the English and so many other peoples, assimilated Christianity to pre-existing cultural traditions.

    We don’t assume that the English Reformation of the sixteenth century was the result of Anglo-Saxons falling on their knees and accepting without question the gospel of Protestantism that John Hus, Martin Luther and others had forged on the European continent. We know that Protestant ideas were taken up and reworked by indigenous English theologians like John Wycliffe, and we know that Henry VIII turned the new doctrine to his own, deeply political purposes, as he restructured his society and increased his own power. Why should we assume that the priests and leaders of nineteenth Tonga were any more less crafty than their counterparts in sixteenth century England? It was Tongans, not Europeans, who planted Christianity permanently in the Friendly Islands. The Western missionaries either had to turn into anti-colonialists or get booted!

    But the film and book I mentioned dealt with ‘Atenisi, the university in Nuku’alofa which has for decades fused Greek philosophy with Tongan thought. I’d consider ‘Atenisi’s legendary founder, the classical scholar and opera singer Futa Helu, a better representative of the best of Western civilisation than Louis Crimp:
    http://vimeo.com/45280589

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Bob R (1,377 comments) says:

    ***And if I could do something for NZ, [it would be to] have the Maoris be just like … all New Zealanders.”

    Umm – Maori are New Zealanders.***

    Isn’t his point that they get separate laws/treatment rather than being treated as equal under the law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Bob R (1,377 comments) says:

    ***Oh Good God. White enclaves.***

    This occurs in practice when you have relatively high crime populations moving in and leading to “white flight”. Malcolm Gladwell discusses this in the book “The Tipping Point”. The classic example is Detroit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

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

    Griff,

    have you actually read any of the literature on the Musket Wars? I don’t see how the book-length texts on the subjects, Crosbie’s Musket Wars and Matthew Wright’s Guns and Utu, can possibly be said to downplay the significance of the conflict. Both present it as apocalyptic. Wright’s book, which was published last year, likens the Musket Wars to the Thirty Years War which devastated Germany.

    The quote you offer from the NZ History website hardly adds up to a reprise of the noble savage thesis. It’s quite true that the Brits were concerned about French turning up in New Zealand – mad De Thierry’s attempt to start a colony in the Hokianga prompted the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Treaty – and that the behaviour of many of the early settlers was anarchic. But of course there was no government, white or brown, over NZ in 1840. Maori nationalism did not then exist (it only developed in the 1850s, as a response to land sales and large-sale settlement); British sovereignty meant nothing, when colonists existed as guests of local chiefs. Matthew Wright makes this point very clearly in Guns and Utu, and I can’t think of any New Zealand historian who would disagree with it. Read Judith Binney’s first book, her biography of Thomas Kendall, and you’ll see it comes through very clearly. Read Angela Ballara’s study of Maori sociology in the late pre-contact and early contact period and you get the same emphasis on fragmentation. Read Patrick Kirch’s classic works on Polynesia as a whole and you’ll see him contrast the relatively decentralised society of Maori to the highly centralised proto-states of the Hawaiians and Tongans.

    What I don’t find, in any modern scholarship, is a characterisation of Maori society, either in the pre-contact or post-contact periods, as unitary, peaceful and unstratified: as an egalitarian paradise, in other words. And yet folks on KB and elsewhere continually complain that Kiwi historians are presenting Maori society in this way. Beats me…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    If it weren’t for the exponents of a new world order trying to rewrite history in a way that makes Europeans into aggressors against peaceful natives Mr Crimp’s ravings would never get oxygen. Those who won’t drink the Koolaid prepared for us by the social engineers instinctively know that the truth probably lies closer to Crimp than Harawira.

    Just another example of unintended consequences caused by the dishonesty of those who know what is good for us.

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

    I notice that Redbaiter uses a picture of the Confederate flag as a sort of logo when he makes comments at his website. I should have guessed that he didn’t consider the existence of slavery in America as well as Aotearoa two hundred years ago a matter of great concern!

    I’m puzzled, though, Red: why do you object to slaving of Hongi Hika, when you apparently think the same practice was not objectionable in Alabama or South Carolina? You’re not one of those dreaded postmodern cultural relativists are you?

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

    ‘If it weren’t for the exponents of a new world order trying to rewrite history in a way that makes Europeans into aggressors against peaceful natives’

    Here we go again! References please! Who are the scholars rewriting the prehistory of New Zealand to make traditional Maori society a peaceful egalitarian paradise, and what are the trusty old texts we should be reading?

    The truth is that you’ve got it completely backwards. The fashion for the Maori as noble savage was a Victorian phenomenon, and the scholarship of professionals over the past ninety years has emphasised the stratification, fragmentation, and conflict in pre-contact society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Bob R (1,377 comments) says:

    ***truth probably lies closer to Crimp than Harawira.***

    This is correct. What’s curious is the genetic basis for group differences (eg. statistical differences in certain MAO-A variants) is something that will never get investigated because it’s too politically explosive.

    http://theunsilencedscience.blogspot.co.nz/2010/01/no-amore-for-maoa-from-maori.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    Hamfisted: “Just goes to show I live in a very different world to the average Kiwiblog contributor.”

    Ain’t that the truth. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton

    I’m not an historian. The brain washing of NZ is being done in the classroom by underhand socialist teachers probably twisting the curriculum to breaking point in order to instil ‘newspeak’ into their vulnerable charges. Listening my grandchildren spouting the crap their marxist pedagogues have drummed into them is all the proof I need.

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

    ‘The brain washing of NZ is being done in the classroom by underhand socialist teachers’

    Well, presumably these sinister brainwashers have some texts to work from? How about a reference?

    And since you know the difference between the faux-history of today and the robust scholarship of the past, can you explain what books we should be reading to get the real deal on NZ history?

    So far none of the conspiracy theorists here have been able to name a single text they object to and a single work of scholarship from the past that they think we ought to be reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    That was the preamble about the treaty as taught to kids in school. It fails to mention the contemporary holocast of the musket wars were one in four where killed and most of the population exiled from their traditional Territory’s by fellow maori. Instead it talks only of the wrongs of colonialism and the depravity of the settlers. In short its pure bullshit when it comes to the motivation of those presenting the treaty and of those sighing. If you read the accounts of the time the most pressing problems facing NZ was the continual warfare and violence The maori wanted to insure more settlers to buffer against more raiding and warfare and also some tribes where interested in protecting themselves from utu as a result of previous raids.The large areas of land being brought was empty and uninhabitable by moari due to the wars. Yet all nz history says is a big scary French boat with a hundred or so frogs on it was going to take over the country and unruly settlers where a problem.

    Its not history being taught its colonial guilt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    Truth will out.

    The problem is, some truth is ugly. Does that mean it should not be told, and people should get rich from telling lies?

    Louis Crimp is not a racist. A Maori friend who used to work for him assured me of that before I met him.

    He once stood up in a bar full of Maori people in Whakatane – he was the only non-Maori there – and said something like, “The reason white people don’t like Maoris is that they’ve always got their hands out.”

    And the whole bar wanted to shake his hand.

    Louis gets noticed because he tells his truth, unfiltered by euphemism. You’re not left wondering what he thinks, and he doesn’t much care what you think of it. He’s not the only 80 year old to do that.

    Of course, he pays a price for his bluntness among the socialist set who are far more concerned with feelings than facts. (Gutless wonders, in other words.)

    Hone Harawira is just as blunt, not as honest, and truly racist. I’m surprised you prefer him, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    “Said something like” – I am guessing he said something very different. From what I have seen racists come off second best in Maori dominated bars.

    I don’t see the views of Crimp, Ansell and Chapman being relevant in 21st Century New Zealand.

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

    I don’t think the scholarship backs you up, Griff – and nor does your own earlier point. Take a look at the very detailed timeline of the Musket Wars that Crosbie provides in his book – the wars had petered out by the late 1830s. They reached their zenith in the 1820s, but once parity in arms was achieved there was little to be gained by new armed expeditions (the unarmed Chathams were an exception). Hongi Hika died a rather pathetic figure within Nga Puhi, because he couldn’t let go of his warring ways.

    And as you seemed to point out earlier, the Brits had no power in NZ in 1840. The notion that they could have protected weaker iwi from stronger iwi is absurd – they couldn’t even defend themselves. As Matthew Wright points out in Guns and Utu, the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty would have had little idea what British sovereignty really meant. Most of them were after increased trade and expertise, and thought that the Treaty would facilitate these things. The idea that they were so weak they had to turn to the tiny Brit population and say ‘we give up our sovereignty – you take over’ isn’t tenable, and doesn’t come through even in the work of ‘pre-revisionist’ historians like Keith Sinclair and James Cowan. It’s a fantasy created for political reasons by the likes of the One NZ Foundation.

    I do agree with you though that the Musket Wars were very important events and that they should be taught in schools and commemorated by monuments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. The only red for me is that of Manchester United (61 comments) says:

    Yes there are Maori in Invercargill and more than a “few”. Invercargill also has a growing Asian population and there is a sizeable Pacific Peoples population as well. The Pacific Islanders came to Invercargill during the 1970’s to work in the numerous freezing works which were in operation then. Both Maori and Pacific Islanders fit in well into the community. Crimp is correct in saying that the Maori in Invercargill are a little bit anglicised.

    I agree with Crimp with his opposition to the ILT. Although the trust gives so much back into the community, it’s monopoly doesn’t allow for competition. The café and bar scene seen through New Zealand doesn’t exist as much as it could do in Invers because of the trusts control. They still like to build their booze barns and watch the millions roll in. Crimp has cancer is trying to make up for his shady and seedy past before meeting the grim reaper. The media shouldn’t give him the attention.

    Again there is an article on Invercargill which can’t resist a derogatory dig at the place. The interviewer saying two hours in Invercargill is enough. Southland contributes greatly to the GDP of this country. Something which needs to be bought to attention more often.

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

    duggledog……

    So you think the Japs and the Germans are really nice guys who you can totally trust do you?…..
    Ill tell you something for nothing….. If Hitler came back tomorrow the Germans would do it all over again – without blinking and eye. And if you think the Japs are any different to what theyve been doing for decades (the second world war was just the end of their actions – theyd been ravishing Korea, Taiwan and China for decades) then you are a very blinkered person.

    Thats no reason to particularly dislike them – but the nature of all cultures doesnt go away overnight and it would be very unwise to forget their characters. For example with the germans they are very predictable and reliable people who dont change quickly – which is the reason why their mechanical products are so good – and you can rely that in the future they will continue to do the same. They have perfection in their blood – perfect products, perfect people. One leads to good products, the other leads to racial cleansing.

    Now – as for maori culture. Its tribal and historically there is no concept of a ‘country’ which is made up of people who came out of the same racial group. Consequently they find it very difficult to think of New Zealand as a paramount entity. Theyve developed for eons as tribal groups who spent almost all their development in NZ fighting each other. The concept of co-operation isnt part of their cultural history. I would identify it as a selfish culture – not that it rose from being personally selfish – but tribally selfish. They had to back then to survivbe – but god damb it – theyve got to change………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Bob R (1,377 comments) says:

    ***I don’t see the views of Crimp, Ansell and Chapman being relevant in 21st Century New Zealand.***

    True, colourblind policies have no place in apartheid New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    “Well, presumably these sinister brainwashers have some texts to work from? How about a reference? ”

    I just posted a link to the resource recommended by the education department re the treaty for year nine study and critiqued its content When it comes to brain washing i guess yours is pretty clean
    here is more from the same site

    Why was the Treaty entered into?

    “New Zealand was changing quickly in the late 1830s. British subjects and other Europeans were acquiring land from Māori and had set up valuable commercial operations. Large groups of settlers had set out for New Zealand in 1839. Crime, violence and general lawlessness was rife, and the British Resident from 1833, James Busby, could do little to control it. Foreign powers, notably the French, were also taking an interest in New Zealand. The British government appointed Captain William Hobson as consul and provided him with instructions to negotiate for the sovereignty of New Zealand and for the setting up of a British colony.”

    The musket wars were central to the treaty yet are pushed into the background by colonial apologists one in four dead in the previous twenty years and no mention in a text on the reasons for the treaty instead its claiming Crime, violence and general lawlessness of the settlers!! something the missionaries were upset about like religious zealots everywhere . We signed a treaty that was to protect moari from themselves more than any other reason. If you try to assert this in a school in nz you will be disciplined as it does not reflect the myth being asserted. I have seen this happening a detention and fail for writing an essay that stated this historical fact. Any view except the official lie is censured by the new Zealand reeducation system

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    duggledog oh there would be a fair number of the pakeha who believe NZ should be a white only country who would wish for a bit of ethnic cleansing.
    Of course they are not brave enough to march through South Auskland with placards reading keep NZ for whites only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    And the whole bar wanted to shake his hand.

    Apocryphal I suspect John.

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

    Griff, when do you think the fact that the TOW was caused by the Musket Wars was pushed into the background by some sort of conspiracy?

    Which historian do you think gets it right?

    Do you think Keith Sinclair was part of the conspiracy? James Cowan, back in the ’20s? Has it occurred to you that you might just be pushing your historiographical barrow uphill here?

    Your view is just at variance with a lot of facts. If Maori were militarily exhausted and happy to be rid of their sovereignty in 1840, why did they initiate armed conflicts with the Brits in Wairau, Wellington, and the north over the next few years? If they were so weak, how were they able to draw a major war with the Brits in the late 1840s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    I am a history teacher and I can’t see why people think we teach a noble savage version of Maori history. We have to use a text book after all and the one used almost universally is “A Century of Change” by Marcia Stenson and Erik Olsen.

    From page 13: “War-weariness was certainly affecting Nga Puhi by the end of the 1820s… the casualties may have risen as high as 19%. Yet fighting between hapu was resumed in the 1830s.”

    Also, “The demand for Pakeha already far exceeded supply.” Maori wanted Pakeha to come and bring them better tools and goods.

    The Boyd Massacre is described on page 4 by the way. This is the text I’ve seen being used at a half dozen high schools in Auckland and I know of no other text with different views in common use.

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

    I’ve repeatedly asked the conspiracy theorists in this thread when they think a conspiracy to distort NZ history began, and which historians from the days before the conspiracy they would have us read. Nobody seems to be able to answer.

    I assume, though, that Keith Sinclair, who was the doyen of NZ historians back in the good old ’50s, isn’t counted as one of the conspirators. Here’s his take on the Treaty of Waitangi, taken from his 1957 book ‘The Origins of the Maori Wars:

    ‘In order to prevent the exploitation of the Maoris by land-sharks, the chiefs yielded to Her Majesty the exclusive right to purchase their lands. It was a genuine attempt the elementary conditions necessary for a humane colonization. That, however, was all the Treaty was, a noble start, never unimportant for the future, but never dominating it. It was the fundamental act for the foundation of a binational people, and, like such other acts, it had always to be ‘interpreted’.’
    (pg 28)

    Obviously there are important differences between what Sinclair has to say about the Treaty and what later historians like, say, Claudia Orange have had to say. But the notion that older historians like Sinclair attributed the Treaty to the Musket Wars and believed that without British intervention Maori would have died out is without foundation. The idea that the TOW was about the Musket Wars and represented the complete surrender of autonomy by Maori has come in recent years from the likes of the One New Zealand Foundation and Martin ‘Celtic NZ’ Doutre. Those folks are the ones who are departing very radically from the consensus of generations of Kiwi historians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Other historians now believe Maori never even intended for the Treaty to give the crown sole right to buy their land. In fact the Treaty never should have done that. The right of preemption should only have given the crown first right to buy, but allowed it to be sold to others if the crown passed. Hobson was the one who misunderstood that right. Williams, who did understand the right, explained it correctly in Maori. So when Hobson and later governors told Maori no one else could buy their land it caused a lot of anger. It was a major reason for the start of the Northern War in 1845.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    So Rightandleft, you are saying that the Boyd Massacre is taught in NZ History in schools?

    I call bullshit.

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

    We’re still waiting for an example of one of those ‘new and rewritten examples’ of NZ prehistory that present pre-contact Aotearoa as an egalitarian paradise longknives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    Strangely I dont have access to my Otago University notes from fucking 1995 Scott! Nor do I have immediate access to the New Zealand Primary or High school curriculums here in the office.
    So I guess I must be lying eh? Or perhaps my friends children are lying when they come home with stories about what a beautiful utopia New Zealand was before Europeans arrived?
    Either way you must be right. Revel in your smugness a little more champ…

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

    Here’s a tip longknives: when you accuse a large number of people of conspiring to do something, make sure you have some evidence. If you say history is being rewritten make sure you can cite a text or two. Otherwise a few of the folks you’re accusing will ask for evidence, like I’ve done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    You are quite right Scott. I am making all this up as I go along (Hell maybe I never even went to University- I think I must have just imagined that part)

    I’d better go and flagellate myself to ease the burden of my Pakeha ‘Colonial Guilt’…Any tips?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Strange you claim indignation at being called a liar Longknives when you actually called me one just a couple posts ago. Not only am I saying the Boyd Massacre is taught, I actually teach it.

    In fact here is the quote from pg. 4 of the Stenson and Olsen text book: “In 1809, the Boyd under Captain John Thompson loaded 2230 fine salted fur skins in Sydney for London and also called at Whangaroa to load a consignment of kauri spars. There a group of Maori captured the vessel, killed all the crew and passengers except for a woman and three children.” This led Gov. Macquarie of Australia to report that “The New Zealanders are in general a very treacherous race of people and not to be trusted.”

    The end of year Level 3 NCEA exams require students to write essays about early contact experiences and reactions of Maori to early Pakeha settlers. Since all current scholarly historical work holds that Maori were experiencing a period of great violence between iwi and did indeed practice cannibalism, head trading, and slavery, I could not possibly cover this all up and expect my students to pass the exams. The Boyd is indeed taught in all Yeaar 13 History classes covering NZ in the 19th Century.

    For Year 10s we use several other smaller texts to cover the signing of the Treaty, one is “First Meetings: Maori/Pakeha” by Katherine Rountree. On pg. 23 it describes “They attacked and killed the Boyd’s crew and burnt the ship.” It has a lot more detail on what happened during the event but you get the idea. It is taught. We are not all lefty socialists indoctrinating the kids. Now I don’t know what they tell them at Primary school. Maybe there they do clean it up and make it all nice and happy for the little kids. But at high school we tell it like it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. KH (695 comments) says:

    Crimp will be vilified for what he is. But what he says is important. A colourblind country is an idea whose time has come perhaps. It’s an important topic.
    Crimp’s odd demeanour and sometimes outrageous conversation will be focused upon. By those who wish us not to hear his point of view.
    But let’s talk about ‘colourblind’ and what it means. Hone Harawira will call it racist. I think it the opposite of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    “Crimp’s odd demeanour and sometimes outrageous conversation will be focused upon”

    That’s because he is 80 years old! For Christ’s sake a trendy young student writer for a University publication would likely find my Grandfather’s world view rather “odd” and possibly “outrageous”…

    Rightandleft- As we speak I am surveying my schoolteacher friends…I will let you know when I find one who has actually heard of the Boyd Massacre…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. KH (695 comments) says:

    Exactly longknives. But lets not talk Crimp. Lets talk ‘colourblind’ It’s an important idea.

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

    Unlike you, longknives, I’ve actually written coherent critiques of contemporary manifestations of the notion of the noble savage – it’s just that I aimed them at *people and texts which advanced that thesis*, like Hone Harawira, not at imaginary historians. If you look at my cracks at Hone for his occasional lapses into noble savagese, you’ll see that I actually *use the work of contemporary historians* against him:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/hones-sentimental-history.html

    You have built an elaborate conspiracy theory out of a memory of a lecture from 1995 that isn’t even relevant – the raid on Rua Kenana happened in 1916, not in the prehistoric period of our history – and a couple of comments from unnamed friends who apparently heard something from some unnamed historian at some unspecified lecture.

    I think you’d have been better off reading something. The archives of the Journal of the Polynesian Society are online.

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

    ‘As we speak I am surveying my schoolteacher friends’

    Oh dear. More anonymous friends as sources. For goodness sake, build your arguments around sources that people can check, if you want to have any credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    “I’ve actually written coherent critiques of contemporary manifestations ”

    Then you post a link to a freaking blog! Mate that’s great comedy…You sure you’re not related to Philu?

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

    Well, if you take a close look longknives, you’ll find a real argument citing real texts, not anonymous friends. That’s something you could learn from. But if you want to spend your money you can order my 2011 book from one of Britain’s top academic publishers:
    http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9780719089091

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    One wouldn’t like to blow one’s own trumpet now Scott?

    I have friends from Journalism school and the media (Yes I’m a writer as well) who have published books also..some were excellent, some were absolute rubbish. None of them use their status as a ‘Published Author’ to laud it over us plebs. Take from that what you may…

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

    You were the one who tried to act all snobbish about a blog post, longknives! I think a blog post is a fine way to make an argument, as long as it cites checkable sources. The whole point about citing texts and real people is that we avoid the ‘my mate heard someone say’ line of argument you’ve been offering on this thread. If you understand journalism you ought to know how to use and cite sources. You’ve charged Kiwi scholars with conspiring to rewrite the nation’s prehistory to say that Maori society was egalitarian and peaceful, when they’ve actually made very different arguments in recent decades. You’ve failed to provide a single source for your argument. ‘My mate said’ doesn’t cut it. You’d be in the editor’s office if you behaved like this at a paper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton

    This is going to be hard on you but it has to be said.

    Warning: This is blog, it may contain unsubstantiated quotes not necessarily backed up by text or citations & (gasp font) opinions!

    Now that’s out of the way do you want to continue to infer that I’m a liar because I formed an opinion about the bias showed by our shitless socialist teachers? Bear in mind that this occurred because of what my nine year old (intelligent) grand daughter told me she had learned at school about the terrible things that happened to Maori because of European settlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Reid (16,509 comments) says:

    I daresay you’d be able to find “the truth” if you merely looked at NZ history material written prior to say, 1980. Then compared the same incidents written about in that material to the way its now portrayed in school, university and even court-submitted histories, and simply measured the delta across a random sample of incidents.

    I daresay that would yield interesting results, albeit the historians who undertook such a task would be unable to find much work afterward so would need to be of a certain age and/or reimbursed so they never had to work again.

    Which says something in itself, doesn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Nasska – I think your views on teachers and Maoris (sic) say a lot more about you than Scott Hamilton.

    Maori and teacher bashing is a typical Neolib strategy, but it serves little in the way of advancing New Zealand’s interests.

    Who will you bash next? Nurses and Pasifika people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. big bruv (13,929 comments) says:

    “Louis Crimp is not a racist”

    Mr Ansell…

    Are you serious?..Crimp might be on the money with some of the things he has to say but to even suggest that he is not a racist is laughable.

    Like John Hatfield (who is also right on the odd occasion) the man is a shocking racist, sadly because he is such a Neanderthal it colours everything else he has to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Hamnida

    ….”Who will you bash next? Nurses and Pasifika people?”…..

    Probably won’t be necessary unless they get into the habit of rewriting history in the manner of scum teachers.

    Edit: I haven’t expressed an opinion on Maoris (sic).

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

    So your unnamed nine year old grand daughter told you she’d learned about some unnamed allegedly negative aspect of nineteenth century colonialism at some unnamed school, Nasska, and therefore there’s a massive, intricate plot being overseen by something you called the ‘New World Order’ to brainwash all Kiwi kids about our country’s history?

    Am I missing something, or is that your argument?

    I think that the self-appointed defenders of Western civilisation in this thread should defend the West by trying to find out something about reason, critical thinking, and empirical inquiry. Socrates would boot the lot of you out of his school, the way you’re going at the moment…

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

    ‘into the habit of rewriting history’

    Let’s try it again: what history of NZ do you approve of? Is there a book, presumably written decades ago, before the rise of the New World Order, that you commend?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    naaska – which teacher has re-written history? I am aware they write text books every now and then – is that what you mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    Nasska- Come now, unless your granddaughter can come up with some contemporary academic references to back her story we can’t place any weight on these claims now, can we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    Never trust a Neolib to rely on evidence. If they did, Neolibs wouldn’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    Scott Hamilton

    OF course moari would not be thinking about the previous thirty years of warfare and the fact that 70 odd percent of them had been displaced from their tribal lands. Just because at least one in four of their number had died within the last generation due to inter tribal warfare would be no reason to institute colonial law. The 2000 lawless settlers mostly confined to Russel would be far more reason to negotiate sovereignty with a foreign power
    for 60000 well armed and experienced warmongers. Its a little like the Jews not being defined by the holocaust sixty years later and its all forgotten

    Revisionist crap from the left permeates the whole treaty debate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Longknives

    Fortunately in a few years she will figure out for herself that Rule 1 in the socialists’ book of mind control is always ask for references & texts. This way they can deflect the argument for long enough to assemble enough red herrings to drag the debate into safer ground.

    For the benefit of the brainwashers, I’m not an historian nor is my grand daughter & neither of us have written books on the subject at hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Longknives, unless your friends are high school history teachers or studied 19th century NZ at university they probably haven’t heard of the Boyd. It is a footnote in history. Yes we teach it and the history of how Maori massively damaged their population and social structure through the musket wars. We also teach of the failed attempts to assimilate Maori after the arrival of Europeans and how the British goal was to eliminate their culture so they could be re-educated in superior western ways. Unfortunately that largely backfired on them. We don’t idealise pre-contact Maori society but we also don’t deny the damage colonial forces did to Maori society.

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

    Griff, I quoted Keith Sinclair. Do you think he’s part of the revisionist conspiracy, too? In 1957? Who exactly do you consider to be a reliable guide to NZ history in the early 19th C? Bill Oliver? Beaglehole? Cowan? None of them took your view of the reasons for the TOW.

    You’re echoing Martin Doutre and other contemporary conspiracy theorists, not the NZ historical tradition.

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

    ‘Rule 1 in the socialists’ book of mind control is always ask for references & texts’

    I think you’ll find that’s rule one for most historians, today and a thousand years ago. Without references there’s no way of checking whether something is true.

    You obviously think NZ history has been rewritten in recent decades. How can you know this if you don’t know what historians said earlier? I’d guess that you’ve heard someone say on some website that Marxists/Muslims/the New World Order/Reptilian Creatures are brainwashing us all. If you read some NZ historians you might be able to decide for yourself whether history-writing in this country has actually changed in the way you claim. But hey, if you think references are part of the conspiracy…

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

    ‘We don’t idealise pre-contact Maori society but we also don’t deny the damage colonial forces did to Maori society.’

    But that’s what a lot of folks on here seem to be unhappy about. They genuinely think that NZ colonial history was some sort of triumphal progress, and Pakeha behaved impeccably towards Maori. They also think historians broadcast this view of the past up until the last few decades, when a sinister conspiracy took hold and history was rewritten. They’ve never read the classic works of the past like Sinclair’s Origins of the Maori Wars, which came out in the ’50s, and James Cowan’s The New Zealand Wars, which came out in the ’20s or Gorst’s the Maori King, which appeared way back in the 1860s, so they don’t realise that historians have never had the balmy view of 19th century history they hold. It’s hard to know what to do except urge them to use their library cards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    60000 armed and dangerous experienced fighters gave away sovereignty of an entire nation because of 2000 naughty whalers woodsman missionaries a couple of brothels and three poms with funny hats. Happens all the time in history. tui

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

    But they didn’t give way, Griff. That’s the point. Sinclair pointed this out in 1957, well before the rise of the revisionists you decry. The chiefs who signed the TOW had no idea they were giving up control of their various rohe. That’s why they went to war only a few years after the TOW was signed against the Brits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Yes the Maori who signed the Treaty thought they were giving away ‘kawanatanga’ not rangatiratanga. They thought they were giving the British the power to send a governor to control the unrully pakeha populace of Kororareka and the new migrants at Port Nicholson (now Wellington). They further thought the right of pre-emption gave the Crown first right to buy their land, but then if the Crown passed they could sell it to others. Initially the British even stuck to the Maori version of the Treaty. The Governor passed the Native Exemption Ordinance which specified British law did not apply to Maori. When Maori massacred a group of unarmed prisoners after a skirmish over land the govt refused to prosecute the Maori involved.

    It was the pre-emption rule that largely sparked war in 1845. The govt was broke and thus couldn’t afford to buy much Maori land, which meant few pakeha settled. The Maori, thinking they were still in charge, actually wanted more land sales and pakeha. The land they were selling wasn’t cultivated or used by them anyway and pakeha brought trade. Hone Heke attacked the flagstaff as a symbol of British power because he didn’t want to scare off the local pakeha, whose trade he still wanted.

    It was only when NZ got self-government and the pakeha populace outpaced Maori that suddenly Maori became subject to all british laws and their land was taken by confiscations and the corrupt dealings of the native land court. Again, none of this is to say Maori weren’t already slaughtering each other by the thousand before the Treaty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Griff (7,808 comments) says:

    Kawanatanga (Governorship) and not Rangatiratanga (sovereignty, …

    the Crown’s legal sovereignty over New Zealand does not, as a matter of strict law, derive directly from the Treaty, but from Captain Hobson’s two proclamations of 21 May 1840 and their subsequent gazetting by the Crown in London

    So the tow is just a couple of sheets of shit paper really

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    No, Hobson declared the North Island British by right of cession, based on the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. However, he declared South Island British by right of discovery, so technically speaking South Island tribes would not be protected by the Treaty.

    More importantly signers to the Treaty were rewarded with gifts, which could be argued makes the whole thing legally voided. You can’t bribe chiefs to sign away subjects’ rights under international law. Also not all iwi signed the Treaty. Some powerful chiefs refused and thus their iwi should not be bound by it, or protected by it. The short version is, the Treaty only has the power we choose to give to it today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    All very interesting, but what does any of it have to do with New Zealand in 2012 making its way in the world.

    And what does any of it have to do with justifying separatist laws and development. Maori seats of parliament which screw up the other electorates because of their size, maori statutory boards on city councils, taniwhas everywhere when there is money to be made, “guardianship” of water, and NZ citizens being lambasted when they use their supposed right of free speech to suggest maybe this isnt the right way to go. And lefties who suggest that you should not be allowed to say things like that because it doesn’t fit with the romantic idea of maori.

    Yeh Im impressed, freedom of speech. Free to say whatever we tell you to say. But stray off the “approved” guidelines and its all over – correction camp for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    I just finished a massive debate on FB about this with a Labour Party activist. I was told I was a racist ignorant asshole and totally insensitive and repeatedly asked to apologise. My crime, saying that what the British did to the Maori was not the same as what the Nazis did to the Jews and that the crimes of the colonisers don’t justify Hone’s racist rhetoric today nor the continued existence of Maori seats. The attacks on my character were incredible given that this was FB and so it was not annonymous, he attacked me under his own name. I could not believe he actually thought Don Brash is equivalent to Hitler. It’s having activists like this in the Labour Party that keep me voting National. (and I’m very much a centrist swing voter)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. KH (695 comments) says:

    I’m with Onetrack (9.47pm) We need to get on with New Zealand making it’s way in the world. I have my views on the Treaty – not worth raising them here because of the hostility that will descend from somebody. Or somebody else.
    I suggest the current New Zealand flag is a good starting point. The wide blue Pacific joined with the Union Jack. Excellent symbolism. Western civilisation thought and justice joined to Pacific culture.
    One country with equality is the way forward.
    Colourblind is an interesting idea. Lets talk about it as an idea. Leave Crimp out of it – that’s just more personalising.

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

    Sorry to hear you got a hard time Leftandright. Ignorance of history and of how to argue about history is not confined to the right, unfortunately. I’m a long way to your left politically but didn’t think much of Hone comparing Brash to Hitler:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2011/05/hone-versus-brash-good-argument-bad_31.html

    Some of the conspiracy-minded here will holler and howl, but I always argue that an historical materialist approach to history offers a way to escape from the tedious moralising about history we get from both the hysterical right and the pious liberals on the left.

    If we take the historical materialist approach, we don’t have to consider, say, the Pakeha takeover of Aotearoa in the nineteenth century as some sort of expression of the inherent evil of white people: we can see it as, in part at least, a consequence of historical forces like capitalism and imperialism that transcend individual humans and individual cultures. My Irish ancestors did not float to New Zealand and settle on confiscated land because they were racists who wanted to help push Maori to the margins of Te Ika a Maui – they came here because they were tired of struggling to survive by growing flax on a few acres of swampy land rented from wealthy Anglo-Irish families. They were part of an imperialist adventure in the south seas, but they had themselves experienced at least some of the realities of imperialism at home, and this experience is what prompted them to come south.

    We can also use the historical materialist approach to avoid ‘scapegoating’ individuals and cultures who are on the receiving end of colonisation and oppression. For example, we don’t have to see, as some right-wingers do, the gap between Maori and Pakeha technology in the nineteenth century as the product of ‘backwardness’ or ‘a lack of curiousity’ amongst pre-contact Maori – we can refer, instead, to the extreme isolation in which Maori had lived for centuries, and the limited range of resources they had access to in Aotearoa, to explain the fact that they lacked the weapons and tools Pakeha brought to Aotearoa. The technological edge Pakeha enjoyed over the people they colonised was the result of historical and environmental circumstances beyond the control of Maori.

    Even if an historical materialist concedes that a people have behaved with great brutality – as Marx does, when he discusses the way the Christians of Europe treated the societies they colonised – this behaviour has to be explained, not by reference to some mystical inherent quality possessed by a culture or faith, but by the action of wider historical forces.

    We only need to look at the many cases in history where an oppressed people has turned into an oppressor people – to consider the brutal way the Highland Scots behaved toward Native Americans in the colonies they founded after being driven off their own land, or the way that Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama behaved after they invaded and conquered the Chathams in 1835, or the way Israelis are behaving today in the Occupied Territories – to see the problems of talking about inherently evil or inherently noble cultures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. KH (695 comments) says:

    Sigh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Scott – may I email you? I have students who would benefit from your experience. If you are averse to putting your address on here,let me know, I’ll post mine to you.

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

    No worries Lee – the address is shamresearch@yahoo.co.nz

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