UNbelieved – the true racism of NZ

118
400

290513 The Marlborough Express Al Nisbet cartoon

Racist Cartoon by Al Nisbet sums up the casual racism NZers enjoy
The New Zealand government must consider United Nations rebukes on their indigenous rights record as ordinary and unremarkable by their casual reaction to the latest indictment – delivered through the clear and clinical language of the Scandanavian heading the working party.
These criticisms are quite routine.  So much so that the government now expects these condemnations.  The government has taken their own inaction as proof the problem is insolvable.  The government does not take action to address the inherent consequences of running a settler state, preferring to rely on the pervasive ideological myth of being the least racist colony in the Empire – as if that peculiar (and undeserved) smugness alone was a general inoculation to any symptom of racism.  At least the government can be assured the media and civil society will largely ignore this report or react with reflexive indignation.  This defensive posture of denial by the Cabinet is precisely why the issues persist.  It is beyond parochialism.  There is barely any self-awareness at the top table of this South Pacific Euro trash tin shack mortgage mill.
The UN calls – as they do in all these sorts of reports – for a study, the result of which will place NZ on a decolonisation spectrum.  Not quite the official decolonisation list (with New Caledonia etc.) but that is basically the underlying tension and the untenable situation the government finds itself 100+ years after gaining control of the country.  Outside findings are incomfortable, they tend to start with a big popping sound.
It wouldn’t be NZ without a disproportionately high incarceration of Maori – that social calamity is just part of the price Maori are forced to pay for their colonisation, and the relative advantage enjoyed by the settler people that all the focus is on kicking a brown guy and not them.  It is a symptom of NZ.  It is NZ which ought to be diagnosed as the illness.  It is NZ that is imposed on the country on the premise of a mandate it knows it has abrogated wholesale.  The thing for which the invading military occupiers gave their lives in the Land Wars, according to the monuments erected by the triumphant government, was not the Queen, not the Empire.  Those mercenaries died “for New Zealand”.  They killed and burnt and looted and raped and occupied and exploited for the settlers yet to come, for that New Zealand, for the quarter of the population born overseas, for the whole system.  This is the current New Zealand. This is the tension.
Everyone seems to accept this at some level: that gangs, self-destructive and anti-social behaviour, resistance to authority, and survival at the social and economic margins by the natives is what happens when a European race takes over a nation, reduces them to a small minority, and attempts to make the native ways illegal and the white ways the only way.  Pakeha – however much they are conscious of this essential racial disadvantage – remain largely unconcerned; and Maori to the extent that they are the victims remain largely unheeded.  A large number of Pakeha remain products and adherents of the settler project, believing Maori are inherently inferior to themselves and their assumed European racial identity and culture (ie. they are racist) and that racial ideology or myth is conveniently reinforced by such statistics as that which have alarmed the UN working party.
Without the portfolio of the NZ Police – the cause in many instances and the main agent of criminalisation – the Maori Party Ministers propping up National are left with corrections and welfare to deal with the aftermath.  This cannot address the problem of detention figures and nor is it designed to – the tools are to be kept well away from anyone who may use them.  The white people would prefer to see unemployed Maori and Pacific people in jail than unemployed and in a gang or position where they could challenge their place in the order, but most of all white people would prefer them to keep working for them and doing what they are told, showing up with a guitar, providing instant culture to fill the void of a typical, generic Anglosphere settler existence.  Be colourful, but know your place.  Maori, on the other hand, are bereft, skeptical, angry, resentful, but remarkably patient.  Hoha.  NZ seems very much like that.
With the exception of population ratios and the passage of a century, there is little practical difference between the Rhodesian state and the New Zealand state: it’s beginnings as a commercial venture of British Imperialists, it’s objectives, methods – and ultimately – demise.  The difference in international treatment is entirely a historical point, there being no doubt that the outrages of the NZ government in the Land Wars of the 1860s and 1870s would have been met with the same sanctions and isolation that the Rhodesian government in the 1960s and 1970s faced as a result of confrontation with the indigenous population of Zimbabwe.  But ask the average NZer, Maori or Pakeha, and they will have no reference point in their bewilderment at the comparison and would reject the colony label despite the obvious constitutional position.  It’s staring back at us from every $20 note and other side of the coin and inked onto the foundation Treaty and stitched into the corner on the national flag the PM wants to get rid of.  Everyone born in NZ before 1978 is definitely a British Subject and the NZ Citizenship Act of 1977 is silent on whether that continues.  The Treaty is with the British Crown and their Governor, not a runaway settler parliament and their elected dictatorship.  These are the facts – no wonder no-one wants to know.  It’s all way too much thinking for the “average Kiwi”.

AUCKLAND (Pacific Media Watch / SBS):  The United Nations has found institutional racism against Māori in the New Zealand criminal justice system  – for the fifth time.

Following a two-week visit to New Zealand, the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention found systemic bias against Māori at all levels of the criminal justice system. It said there must be a review into the bias against Māori, and noted that four previous reports by the UN had found the justice system to be biased against Māori.

In a long instalment chronicalling the woes of colonisation the UN through its various bodies have never been able to persuade the New Zealand government – a settler state in conflict with the original people – that they are wrong.  Muldoon as PM preferred to attend the Olympics in 1976 and cause an African boycott.  What has changed?

118 COMMENTS

  1. Until NZ has a real Nelson Mandela – someone who is willing and able to run a campaign of sabotage, someone who has killed hundreds or thousands of settlers rather than none, someone who makes clear to the rest of the West that NZ is worse than South Africa at the height of apartheid – until NZ has a real Nelson Mandela rather than an ineffective Taame “Mandela” Iti –

    the nothing will change.

      • “Username “Te Waiti” – provocative, extremist, and pointless.”

        Add to that, agent provocateur.

        Rob Gilchrist was notorious for this, continually calling for extremist actions, to try and give the police an excuse to brutally suppress legitimate protest.

        It was Gilchrist’s illegal and immoral actions that gave the police the background that fueled police bigotry and gave the impetus for the so called “anti-terror raids” racistly targeting Tuhoe as well as Left protesters the police had also taken a subjective dislike to.

        • targeting Tuhoe as well as Left protesters the police had also taken a subjective dislike

          right. because it’s not about structural racism & colonialism, it’s about whitey police who take a “subjective dislike” to people.

          yeah right.

  2. This piece is a litany of racist claptrap. Maori have enjoyed huge benefits from colonisation, including but not limited to, being dragged from a Stone Age culture into a people sharing equal rights in a modern society. If Maori are over represented in negative statistics, that’s each individual’s responsibility. It’s not a Maori problem and it’s not a pakeha problem. Only when we move beyond this victim mentality owned by sims Maori and white liberals will we truly move forward together as a nation.

    • Spoke like a true racist ACT supporter, IV. Of course you believe your vile racist claptrap (as you put it); it suits your privileged position in society.

      “Stoned age culture”, eh?

      Yup. Because European civilisation is far more “cultured”…

      When we do war, we slaughter by the tens of millions, and use state-of-the-art weaponry. We don’t fuck around with “stone age” stuff – we destroy entire cities.

      Yup. “Cultured”. That’s us.

      Your ignorance does ACT, and the angry-white-male, proud.

      • Depends on how you classify slaughter. The Maori were more than capable of performing genocidal policies against other groups. Witness the impact of the invasion of the Chatham Islands in the 1830’s. Additionally the Musket wars were as brutal and nasty as most European wars up to that time.

            • So they were enabled by the guns and the boats of pakeha who were more than happy to feed and enable that genocide but your point is to make that all out to be a Maori example of violence, Not Pakeha enabling. Like IV, I love it when we get to the issues of race, because you both can’t help but highlight your racism. It’s like global warming and your attempts to downplay that as well.

              The same certainty you damn Frank with over tiny points of difference is the same certainty you make on climate denial and racism. It helps alleviate any fear that you might be right.

              • And before guns it was taiaha, patu and other Rākau Māori. The Maori didn’t need the Europeans to teach them how to be violent savages Martyn. Like all peoples they did quite well on their own.

              • So they were enabled by the guns and the boats of pakeha who were more than happy to feed and enable that genocide but your point is to make that all out to be a Maori example of violence, Not Pakeha enabling.

                Completely irrational statements against racism may be made in a good cause but they remain completely irrational statements.

        • The Maori? During the time of the events mentioned the concept of a Maori people was a radical notion amongst a people organised along tribal lines. European influence with trade, technology and relations created an imbalance in the societal order with some tribes benefiting more than others. At least some traders were wise enough to trade muskets equally to various tribes they traded with, with the objective of creating a balance of power.

          • @ Andy K – Imagine the consequence if an alien civilisation came to Earth and traded advanced technology (weapons, etc) for land, mining rights, etc, with various sundry nations?

            Imagine if that alien technology was so advanced that it left our own way behind. And imagine if advanced alien weaponry made any one or more nations on Earth so powerful that it made them invincible and the new dominant force in human affairs.

            Then let’s imagine that weaponry was given/traded with nations that decided to use them to enforce their hegemonistic designs on their neighbours.

            Imagine the response from the US, Russia, China, et al, to being threatened by other nations with highly-advanced weaponry that made their own all but obsolete.

            Colonialism; “musket wars”; and land grab, 21st Century style.

            Now we begin to see what Maori (and other indigenous peoples throughout the world) went through when an “advanced alien race” landed on their shores…

            • Let’s take your hypothetical scenario then shall we.

              If an advanced alien civilisation made contact with us and then sold advanced weapons to a nation that then used those weapons to attack other nations I would blame the nation carrying out the aggression for their actions. They should be held to account not made out to be blameless and innocent victims due to sickly white liberal post colonial guilt.

              • I don’t know Gosman, I still blame the Americam super power for stirring it up in different parts of the world, the military industrial complex getting rich on said wars stirred up. People who lived under oppression still lived a relatively settled life compared to what is happening in their countries now. Probably similar to the major upheaval to Maori society with the coming of the European.

        • Gosman says:
          April 16, 2014 at 8:50 am

          Depends on how you classify slaughter.

          !!!

          Only you could make such a crass statement, Gosman and not understand the implications of your words.

          • Do you not think the actions of Ngatiawa against the Moriori in the late 1830’s was genocidal then Frank?

        • Don’t forget where the muskets came from. Comparing those tribal wars (1810-1835) with countless wars in nations with a “superior culture and civilization” is like comparing cork pop guns with bren guns. It’s a stupid racists analogy.

      • Nothing racist about my post Frank. It’s simply inconvenient to your white liberal guilt. The Maori culture was ‘stone age’. They had a life expectancy of around 30 years, they were a cannibalistic culture who were essentially a disparate group of tribes for whom communication was generally via the club. They also had some amazing attributes, including their sophisticated gardening techniques, and their concept of mana. I love our Maori heritage, and the ongoing contribution of Maori to our nationhood. But I take no responsibility for the scum who inhabit our jails, whatever colour they may be.

        • In essence they were not much different to the Irish before the English/British subjugation. It is hardly racist to point this out.

          • Wow, Gosmann, every time you turn on your keyboard you expose further depths of ignorance. The English subjugation/invasion of Ireland was where they first started to sharpen racism as an instrument of empire building. The whole invasion and treatment of the Irish was predicated on the theory that they were an inferior race.

          • Gosman & IV – you two are a classic study in racism predicated on a system which favours one group over another.

            Hell, you’re so blind to your racism that you can’t even begin to see basic lessons of history where European settlers were highly selective in their concept of land ownership.

            Land was stolen from Maori and the response of people like you is “get over it – it happened a hundred years ago”.

            Meanwhile, you utterly reject any notion of returning alienated land to their original ownerships, as at 1840, because that might upset property rights of current “owners” (aka, occupiers).

            One law for all? If only!

            Until you’ve been colonised by a Great Power, you are both ignorant as to what it does to a subjugated society, whether that be Maori, Tibetan, or even, today, Ukrainian.

            • BTW Everyone can lay claim to belonging to a culture that has been colonised by a great power. My background includes Irish, Cornish, and Scottish. Even the English were colonised by the Normans.

              • @ Gosman – so what? What’s your point?

                Is that a pathetic attempt to justify colonialism; “it happened to my ancestors so it’s ok to do it to others”?!

                Considering that a Treaty was enacted in 1840 to prevent further alienation of Maori land, I’d say it goes well beyond your weak attempt at justification.

                • You are mixing two unrelated things here Frank. There is very little disagreement at an official level for working to redress historical geviences related to land confiscations etc. The wider effects of colonialism on the other hand is something that has not got any sort of high level agreement on dealing with or even if it is a problem. Indeed it could be argued that the Maori agreed to sign up to being colonised by the British. What was it that the British got as a result of the Treaty?

                  • No, many thought they were signing up to protect their tino rangatiratanga. Hence the different interpretations between the treaty and Te Tiriti. I’m sure I’ve given you a reference from a public law book to research on this matter Gosman. And you still spout out surface crap which has no basis of fact. Is it really worth arguing with you? *sigh* there’s also stuff that came after which further supports Maori didn’t want to give up their sovereignty. Can you think what Gosman?

                    • No. You are quite wrong. But the question wasn’t what the Maori thought they were getting in return but what they gave to the British. Answer that question please.

            • “Land was stolen from Maori and the response of people like you is “get over it – it happened a hundred years ago”.”

              Considering the extent of efforts being made to compensate Maori, yep that’s fair. Get over it it. I see most Maori doing exactly that, and a bunch of white liberals wringing their hands with not the slightest genuine interest in the advancement of Maori.

              • The pittance paid out as reparations for land confiscation is a joke and anyone trying to argue that amounts to an ‘effort’ is either being dishonest or ignorant or both.

                • The amount paid out has been negotiated and agreed between the Crown and the respective Iwi. If the Iwi doesn’t feel it is getting a fair value it is free to not accept what is being offered.

                  • Gosman – Yeah, because poverty is such a fantastic alternative huh?

                    You really are so narrow in your thinking Gosman!

                    • The Iwi organisations negotiating the various settlements are on the whole not in poverty. If they wish to stand up on a matter of principle they should refuse to accept what the Crown is offering them.

              • Intrinsicvalue says:
                April 17, 2014 at 10:39 am

                “Land was stolen from Maori and the response of people like you is “get over it – it happened a hundred years ago”.”

                Considering the extent of efforts being made to compensate Maori, yep that’s fair. Get over it it.

                “Get over it”.

                Thank you for proving my point. And thereby demonstrating your support for racist, colonialist policies which stole land, assets, and resources from Maori.

                By the way, the compensation to land expropriations (both overt and quasi-“legal”) in both cash and land is a fraction of what Maori originally held in land ownership.

                Coupled to that is how much marginal land was awarded to Treaty claimants (for which National is now blaming Maori for not successfully “developing), and the whole process is severely flawed.

                It would be like the State seizing your land in Remuera, and reimbursing you with $10,000 cash and a similar sized section in South Auckland.

                I doubt you’d be a happy chappy.

                • Except it isn’t like that at all.

                  It would be like if the Government seized my great grandfathers property 100 years ago and then I negotiated with the Government to compensate my great grandfather’s descendents and myself and came to an agreement which we both signed up for and presumably agreed.

                  Seems like a fair process to me.

                  • Of course it “Seems like a fair process to” you, Gosman.

                    You haven’t had your land confiscated and you have benefitted from white settler society.

                    You haven’t addressed the point I made to IV in my April 17, 2014 at 12:36 pm post.

                    • Gosman you questions are so moronic that they cannot be intelligently answered. But I think you knew that already.

        • Of course Maori were a stone age culture. But who said their life expectancy was 30 years. Captain Cook’s observations say that males were compared to his puny men, taller and superior physically. There was no such thing as obesity. What was life expectancy in Europe in Cook’s time amongst child labourers, miners etc etc.

      • The Maori did have a neolithic culture. What’s wrong with saying that?

        When we do war, we slaughter by the tens of millions, and use state-of-the-art weaponry. We don’t fuck around with “stone age” stuff – we destroy entire cities.

        And yet for all that, we are still less likely to die violently than a person who lives in a neolithic, tribal society.

        The error in the original poster’s argument is not in claiming that western civilisation is superior to Maori neolithic tribalism, for it is for Maori in countless, obvious ways (although obviously not all). His error is to assume that Maori must accept these benefits as full payment for injustices done to them by the colonisers. That’s no more reasonable than a rapist trying to buy off his victims with large sums of money.

    • Here we go again – the old ‘Stone Age culture’ slur. And yet it was a culture that produced beautiful greenstone mere and intricate carvings without the aid of metal tools. I’d say that was quite an achievement.

      • Yes, but that’s what Stone Age means – it’s a descriptive rather than normative label. Lots of stone age cultures produced beautiful things.

      • So did many stone age cultures. Just because you produce beautiful works of art and have great craftsmanship doen’t mean you aren’t part of a Stone age culture. The Maori before contact with Europeans were undoubtably a stone age culture because they did not work with metal.

        • “Stone age” is a eurocentric term, applies only to the interconnected cultures of eurasia. cultural development is not linear.

          • Ahhh no. Stone age refers to a broad prehistoric time period during which humans widely used stone for toolmaking. Essentially this would apply to Maori culture pre European contact. It is nothing to be ashamed of in my mind. The Maori used the available resources and developed appropriate technology. Until the arrival of the Europeans they hade no real motivating factors or outside input to help spur any further technological advancement. This is just a statement of fact nothing else.

            • Really? We weren’t waiting around for the “superior Pakeha.” The fact that we got here before them speaks volumes for our “stone age culture”. They had to develop into an iron age one first. We had developed to a point where the new tools, weapons, and other “maitai” (iron impliments) provided an impetous for innovation and development (1790-1835). The pluses and minuses are well known. These iron age people brought the ‘flu, measles and chicken pox which devastated a population who had no immunity. No tribal war compared with that. Superior technology does not bring with it a people who believe in peace, the environment and clean water. On the contrary, in Germany and Japan it bred an arrogant racist people who thought they could win WW2.

          • Then how were precontact Maori in any way different as regards their use of stone tools?

            They farmed, after all.

          • “Stone age” is a eurocentric term, applies only to the interconnected cultures of eurasia. cultural development is not linear.

            I almost wish there was a God, so I could pray to him to deliver us from the monstrous evil of postmodernism.

        • The sophistry from Gosman, Tom, et al over the derogatory term “stone age: won’t wash. You guys don’t even have the balls to own your racist remarks.

          IV meant the term as a pejorative;

          Maori have enjoyed huge benefits from colonisation, including but not limited to, being dragged from a Stone Age culture into a people sharing equal rights in a modern society.

          As usual, the craven dishonesty of the Right is something to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

          • Not that I expect you will because you are the master of deflection but can you tell me how Maori were substantially different from other neolithic farming cultures throughout the world.

            • The Maori were an atypical neolithic culture when they met Europeans – having lost ceramics and probably bronze working in the course of the pacific migration. But they had an extensive oral history and a philosophical culture that was capable of innovations like Chatam Island pacifism. (Democratic government is less of a step than you might think, band cultures typically develop consensus democracy quite early).

              Colonisation has been a mixed experience for Maori – although it brought some advantages, especially in terms of the food poverty that underwrote practices like cannabilism, a small proportion of colonists through criminal acts caused great hardship and intergenerational poverty. Colonial society was largely unsuccessful in protecting Maori property rights, and the successors of these land thieves are todays asset thieves.

              As usual, society at large ends up paying and suffering for the greed of the kleptocrats. Statistics like the mortality and incarceration rates measure the degree to which we have lived up to the promises of the treaty. At present we certainly can do better.

            • Gosman says:
              April 17, 2014 at 9:44 am

              Not that I expect you will because you are the master of deflection but can you tell me how Maori were substantially different from other neolithic farming cultures throughout the world.

              Whoa there, sunshine!! You’re deflecting from the issue here; the pejorative use of the term “stone age”, to justify colonisation.

              Now you’re demanding an anthropoligical discourse on neo-fucking-lithic “farming cultures throughout the world”?!

              Piss of!

              The issue here is the rationalisation of colonisation by using language that implies justification of conquest, land seizures, and cultural assimilation/destruction.

              Not deflecting elsewhere because you can’t/won’t address the issue under discussion.

              This is how you try to deal with issues, Gosman, but it ain’t gonna wash. You rightwing twerps raised “stone age culture” as justification – fucking deal with it.

              • No, it was used as a description of pre-European contact Maori society. In this regard it is entirely accurate and without prejudice. If you disagree then explain why that term is not applicable.

          • They have been taken from a stone age culture to a modern one. That’s simply a fact. Are you seriously arguing that stone age cultures were more desirable than living in the 21st century? If so, I may know of a few places you could move to!

      • Here we go again, equating the term ‘stone age’ with a slur. It is not a slur, and was intended to be. It was an observation, and one based on fact. Maori may well have made beautiful carvings, been great gardeners and had a well developed system of weaponry, but the fact is they were eating each other, they were deeply divided along tribal boundaries, and had an average life expectancy of only 30. These are not insults, they are facts.

        Today Maori do not eat each other. They do not settle tribal disputes with Rākau Māori. They have access to world class education, healthcare, technology, employment. Maori are numbered amongst the leading sports people, academics, judges, lawyers, in the country, perhaps the world. If some can do it, any can do it. For those who do not succeed there is no lack of opportunity just lack of will, and in that Maori are no different to any other race or people group.

        • No not all can do it IV. I’m Maori and managed to stay out of jail. But it’s not easy or possible for all. On the surface yes you need ‘will’ but one needs to delve deeper to discover a whole lot of variables that negatively impact on Maori developing ‘will.’ Including of course the historic genocide which left many Maori with a limited cultural and economic base from which to flourish. You obviously have no idea about the barriers or inequalities, living in your safe little Eurocentric world, your ‘oh if only they could be like me world.’ Knowing how to overcome barriers is more than a matter of ‘will’ because one also needs to know how to get to that ‘will’ place. Anyhow It’s not your Maori culture. And just because you use Rakau Maori with a macron (by the way the ‘a’ in Maori has a macron as well), doesn’t make you and expert or a friend. Believe me it’s not that easy to develop ‘will’ in an alien environment, and Maori have to cope with this type of environment on a daily basis.

          • Win that qualifies for the nonsense of decade award.

            There was no historical genocide against Maori, except in the recesses of your brain, and frankly your use of the word is an insult to both history and your understanding of it. Whatever wrongs were committed against Maori are being righted, and part of that process is providing Maori with a substantial economic base, yet the disproportionate stats continue.

            You have no idea about my ‘world’. None. You are welcome to live in your imaginery world where Maori are downtrodden and to continue to use that as excuse for a victim mentality, but meanwhile the world moves on and leaves you behind.

    • Laissez-faire racist rhetoric.

      Colonialism is an exploitative system and is by no means intended to benefit those it exploits, except perhaps a divisive elite.

      …”dragged from a Stone Age culture into a people sharing equal rights in a modern society”

      Disregard to the values, and understanding, of others is clearly demonstrated here. For example Pre-colonial Maori society afforded women near equality with men. In mythology many women figures were prominent, in society many women held positions of authority. The number of women who signed the Treaty of Waitangi is debatable. Latter Maori protocols were altered according to the discriminatory Victorian-era views on women introduced here.

      Remainder of the comment – textbook example of Laissez-faire racism. The 19th century era of economic liberalism devastated Maori society especially when it showed its true colours in the latter half of the century. The circumstances leading to the Treaty of Waitangi revolved in large part around the New Zealand Company’s plans to colonise here according to their bigoted ideals. While the company was eventually unsuccessful, the resulting colonisation project occurred with a similar kernel of bigoted ideals.

      Perhaps if economic liberalism is accompanied by social liberalism the system may have merit. However, historically and at present, many staunch proponents of economic liberalism are social conservatives. We find token gestures of social liberalism in reforms to provide a veneer of progress, like the current Treaty settlement process; paying a fraction of the real value of the grievance usually to an elite which the bulk of Maori see no benefit and struggle more so due to economic reforms that ignore social well-being. Stark contrast to the welfare state implemented by the First Labour Government which negotiated and paid a number of settlement claims while introducing policies that actively improved the well-being of Maori.

      Going “forward” under current circumstances will likely result in a similar outcome as the unfurling Israel-Palestine situation, an impoverished minority displaced into insignificance.

      A real difference will come by eliminating racism/discrimination, which are negative and nonsensical beliefs/actions utilised by those seeking power and control by evading the “space” of others.

      • “Disregard to the values, and understanding, of others is clearly demonstrated here.”

        What utter bollocks. Today’s society offers Maori an infinitely better existence than they enjoyed prior to colonialism. But more than that, colonialism is an historical reality across the planet over the history of the human species. To suppose for even a moment that Maori could stand apart from that process is naieve in the extreme.

        Maori participate in a free and democratic society. Maori receive the same access to education, healthcare, welfare, etc as any other citizen, indeed in many cases they receive more than non-Maori. The many wrongs done to Maori will not be righted by institutionalised racism (such as retaining the Maori electoral seats) or in liberal white hand wringing. They will be righted by the justified completion of the treaty settlement process, the recognition of the place of Maori in the countries young history, and by empowering Maori towards success in the same way as for non-Maori.

        • What utter bollocks. Today’s society offers Maori an infinitely better existence than they enjoyed prior to colonialism.

          Quite an audacious statement, care to provide credible evidence? An infinitely better existence according to personal opinions however detached from a reality with which you have little or no experience? Interesting how you make numerous references to “white liberals” in a derogatory manner with connotations of either: power hungry liberals seeking power by rabble-rousing and using Maori, or; dismay at “whites” breaking herd unity with their racial brethren. Well, I’m part Maori with further nationalities of ancestry that encompasses many various experiences in the settlement of New Zealand. Not that being a specific race is a prerequisite for understanding racism one can easily observe in society along with the inherent injustices attached. But being part of a minority one certainly has extensive experiences with discrimination.

          With Maori over represented in many negative statistics, health amongst them, ever considered the change in diet? Out where I live which was once the Seventy Mile Bush, accounts from the time describe Kererū in abundance like bees. The environment was abundant with protein which formed the majority of the Maori diet, carbohydrate was scarce and a reason Kumara (a superfood) was cultivated. Contrast that with today where protein is expensive, carbohydrate cheap and diabetes endemic. Most of the bush cleared over time for pasture land, land unjustly sold or confiscated, Native wildlife now seldom seen and scarce, sure some Maori got jobs in the once hundreds of mills and then some as farm labourers to scrape a living ,which was once free, while ultimately someone else profits. Then as I alluded in the previous post, traditional Maori society in many aspects was much more liberal than the Victorian-era society whose values were later enforced upon them. The use of the word “savage” speaks volumes of one’s convictions; because one can’t fathom the system of life lived by traditional indigenous societies and finds it disconcerting, by no means makes one’s standards and perceptions of existence absolute.

          But more than that, colonialism is an historical reality across the planet over the history of the human species. To suppose for even a moment that Maori could stand apart from that process is naieve [sic] in the extreme.

          An extremely perplexing and bizarre statement. So in your mind colonialism and its exploitative qualities are all naturally part of the human condition and thus should be accepted and observed. History is a story of the rise and fall of empires and elites who are often the agents of colonialism. So according to your logic, in my father’s mother country in Eastern Europe, they should have accepted Russian imperial domination and the effort to eliminate their culture and language. Then Nazi Germany’s occupation should have been accepted as the natural order of things. My family shouldn’t have assisted the Resistance, my grandmother shouldn’t have risked her life and the lives of her family to smuggle food to the Jewish ghetto, my grandfather shouldn’t have served in the army, my father and aunties should have been content with forced labour. Count your blessings while one is relegated to a second class citizen and injustices abound. It just doesn’t work that way in the real world. Maori grievances came to the fore as a result of many protest actions over time; they didn’t just surrender and assimilate themselves completely into the prevailing colonial mold.

          Consistently low voter turnout by Maori suggests disillusionment with the democratic process. Reports in recent years of unequal treatment of Maori in the healthcare system is shameful. Education is hardly egalitarian as I can attest from my time throughout schooling often experiencing and witnessing racist insults; hardly a conducive environment for learning and I can understand those who drop-out from what can feel a lonely and hostile place. The welfare system is so horrendously flawed regardless of race. Disparaging “liberal whites” – the idea that “conservative whites” will deliver social justice is absurd. …”empowering Maori towards success in the same way as for non-Maori” ; I agree but definitely not in the Don Brash/John Ansell way as your rhetoric evokes.

          • Always entertaining to see noble-savage bollocks about hunter-gatherer societies created in a written language and published from a computer connected to the internet.

            • @ Pyscho Milt… Hmmmm, it’s hard to escape the image of US “grunts” in Vietnam, destroying entire villages and spraying napalm over men, women, and children…

              And then wonder if the “noble savage bollocks” applies to human beings, irrespective of whether they’re wielding a mere or M16.

            • Glad to have entertained you due to your warped interpretation and condescending attitude. But acknowledging hunter-gatherer societies as more sophisticated than the clichéd prejudicial narrative is hardly romantic.

              Romance abounds in the sentiment of those here who deny any racism exists, sentiments further evoking the romantic notion of the benevolent and noble colonist, radiating the light of civilisation into the dark lands of the savage.

              And if I have demonstrated a degree of romanticism perhaps it’s understandable if you’re like me, in the gutter with extremely little and declining opportunities to rise along with grave doubts over what the future will deliver. Sure, traditional Maori society was far from perfect, but the land as it was, abundant in sustenance, seems mighty attractive to those of us who have to make do on a limited and ultimately uncertain diet. Some great civilisation.

              • What happened to all the Moa? There was enough of them for a sub culture of Maori society to develop based on hunting them so where did they all go?

                • Gosman says:
                  April 18, 2014 at 5:48 am

                  What happened to all the Moa? There was enough of them for a sub culture of Maori society to develop based on hunting them so where did they all go?

                  *KaZIIIING!*

                  “Moa”?!

                  MOA?!?!

                  And the Deflection Award for The Month goes to Gosman – for the 50th consecutive month!!

                  😀

                    • The peculiar tenacity of your questioning and the many peculiar questions that stray drastically from the original subject of the post suggests some strange complex. What are you trying to achieve?

                    • What about other species since extinct once the “superior culture” arrived with guns to shoot them and dogs, cats, ferrets, rats and other vermine to kill them. I forgot the possum. The moa was simply an unadaptable large source of protein.

                • Tally the number of native species extinct or endangered before and after the colonisation of New Zealand.

                  Think about it this way, the moa couldn’t withstand the hunting and to a lesser extent forest clearance by Māori, do you really think they’ll be around today if Māori had not rendered them extinct?

                  Consider the Haast’s Eagle that also became extinct along with the moa, do you think Victorian settlers would have been pleased to co-exist with such a large bird of prey?

                  So I assume some think Māori deserve exceptional resentment for the demise of the moa. A resentment likened to that of an evil, wild, blood-thirsty savage murdering the beloved Big Bird of Sesame Street fame for kicks.

                  • Irrelevant speculation. The fact is that the Maori caused the extinction both directly and indirectly of two of the most distinctive animals that were native to NZ. All this talk about how the land was abundant and the Maori worked in harmony with nature is nonsense.

                    • Your point being?

                      So given between seven hundred and a thousand years of Māori settlement and the environment more intact than the previous less than one hundred and fifty years, you infer the Māori like many indigenous cultures didn’t observe any conservation of the environment. Given any introduced species whether human or otherwise, there’s bound to be an impact on the host environment. Some more detrimental than others.

                      I doubt Māori would ever had cleared the land to the extent that has occurred. If they did it would probably have taken another thousand plus years, but that’s just sheer conjecture. Unlike colonial settlement focussed on economic growth and attached to a modern global economy, what incentive would such drastic environmental change serve an isolated pre-colonial Māori culture with their own ways?

            • Despite your question having a generalised tone, my answer is no. However from experience I had the displeasure of encountering two blatantly racist teachers as assessed by their speech and attitude. One can’t discount the prospect of a very small minority who are racist.

              From my experience the racism one experiences at school largely revolves around the attitudes displayed by some students so inclined.

              From an early level one can find the occasional child who speaks blatantly racist sentiments, they probably don’t fully understand what they’re saying just repeating the attitude found at home. Later some who accept racist ideas as being “taught at home”. Advance through the years one can find students drifting apart into a divisive order, racist beliefs and stereotypes used by some to belittle others and define “us” and “them”. If you’re at a school where there are very few students of your ethnicity, such experiences can make one feel alienated and leave a very bitter impression of the social order as well as undermining one’s confidence.

              A lot worst back in time. Easy to hear accounts of the cane for speaking Maori, and relentless racial abuse from fellow students which influenced many to leave schooling early.

              Anyway, I completed secondary school over a decade ago, I can only wonder if much has changed since. Find some youngsters today with an extraordinarily tolerant attitude which is hopeful.

          • Low voter turnout is no different to crime. I don’t force anyone to vote or not to vote. It’s an individual decision we all make, just like whether we live a sensible existence of something out of ‘once were warriors’.

            Now, to your first question. When the Europeans arrived in NZ, the average life span of Maori was around 30 years. It is now around 70, and the gap between Mari and non-Maori is narrowing rapidly.

            Pre European Maori society was tribal and warring. Cannibalism was not uncommon.

            Maori today enjoy exactly the same benefits of living in a 21st century society as you and I.

            Maori now enjoy all of the benefits of technology, a comprehensive health system, education, significant ‘race based’ benefits (e.g. educational and employment quota), a race based electoral quota, Govt. funded language nests, Govt. funded efforts to preserve Maori culture, etc etc etc.

            Like non-Maori, Maori make their own choices, good and bad. And like non-Maori that can live with those choices, and not blame every ill on some non-existent colonial hardship.

  3. Perhaps part of the problem is that we look across “the ditch” to feel smug, because our treatment of indigenous people appears to be far superior to the Australian settlers. This contrast then allows us to continue our racist behaviour towards our fellow humans with a clearer conscience.

  4. Until the 1860’s Maori in NZ produced most of the food for the European Settlors they controlled most of the coastal shipping and had vessels which regularly sailed to Australia and the US trading goods.

    In the 1860’s with a shift in the balance of power towards the European Settlors and the thirst for land by the Settlors, particularly their desire for the productive lands of the Waikato & the Taranaki the NZ Land Wars broke out, these lands were subsequently confiscated by the Settlor Governments.

    With the loss of their homelands the Maori lost their economic clout and so began the degradation of the Maori Race and they lost their ‘wairua’. If you read texts such as Elsdon Bests “Coming of the Maori” you will realise they were a sophisticated highly organised race of people.

    Colonisation and the theft of Maori Land by the State has left NZ in the position the country is in today, it is an undeniable fact and it is actually a reality. John Key is just taking colonisation to the next level, which is corporatisation which is the selling of State Assets which are basically owned and have been paid for by the taxpayers of NZ.

    • The trouble is they weren’t that organised. If they had been they would have had better tactics against the British beyond merely delaying the inevitable and a long term stategy put in place to gain the upper hand. Instead the British were able to gain control relatively easily and with the active support on a number of Maori who fought on the side of the Crown.

      • And yet for all that, we are still less likely to die violently than a person who lives in a neolithic, tribal society.

        If you’re a Whitey – sure. If you’re Maori or Pacific, nope.

      • Gosman says:
        April 16, 2014 at 8:55 am

        The trouble is they weren’t that organised.

        What? Sez who?

        You mean they weren’t organised like who, precisely?

        Europe?

        Europe was so fucking well organised that they’ve orchestrated two World Worlds; killed 37,000,000+ (WW1) and 63,185,500 (WW2); produced two extremist ideological systems that’ve sent millions to gas chambers or to die from forced collectivisation; and colonised vast areas of the planet, often destroying entire cultures in the process.

        Is that the “organised” you’re referring to?

        Christ, Gosman, your conceit is jaw-dropping.

        Your idiocy is possible only because you benefit from the *organised* colonialism of Europe. If you were a native of Sth America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Nth America, etc, your fanboi enthusiasm for Europe would be non-existent.

        • Frank, I have Celtic heritage. I am well aware of the effects of colonialism, both positive and negative.

          • Gosman says:
            April 17, 2014 at 10:15 am

            Frank, I have Celtic heritage. I am well aware of the effects of colonialism, both positive and negative.

            Rubbish. You’re an apologist for colonialism. I see nothing in your comments here to support your claim that you’re “well aware of the effects of colonialism, both positive and negative”.

            However, feel free to post “the effects of colonialism, both positive and negative”. I look forward to examples showing your “awareness” on the issue.

            • Gosman. Ignorance knows no bounds. Putting up opinion as fact just to have an argument. Ridiculous person!

  5. What a load of toss. All this endlessly repeated rubbish about how badly maori have been treated simply reinforces this deception in the minds of many maori and they spend their life believeing this crap – and thus its a miserable life.

    The carton at the top doesnt really tell the full truth. You see if society feeds todays kids, all that teaches them is that when they have children – they wont even need to think about feeding them because ‘society’ will be feeding them. Such programmes do even more harm to those in this position of not wanting to feed their kids today (and anyone even on welfare really has no excuse for not feeding their kids – well no monetary excuse anyway.)

    All these comentators who constantly keep telling maori that theyve been badly treated are doing much more harm than any colonial rat bag ever did. You keep telling them that they are downtrodden and all that shit and theyll believe it – and they go all sour and hate society and finish up as a guest of her majesty.

    Maori should be told point blank that its time they stopped this wailing and moaning and to get off their arses and help themselves. Of course maori leadership is probably the worst in the world. Once they get in positon of power they think only of them selves – all we need to do is to look at whats happened with treaty settlements and who is really benefitting.

    • The level of misunderstanding shown by Barry is symptomatic of the wide spread internalisation of the colonial mindset by the average NZer.
      Instead of looking at NZ as a whole and wondering what could be down to make society better for everyone, Barry, like many, adopts an us-versus-them mindset and pits himself against what he sees as the typical Maori, apparently someone who is no longer proud of his vibrant culture and has become instead disillusioned by what he is told by his peers. What this fails to understand, however, is that this mindset is doing more damage to the Maori psyche than any treaty settlement ever could.

      If society feeds the children of today it is not teaching them that society will continue to feed their children – it tells them that in our country we are not all treated equal. It shows them that we are not all born with the same opportunities. It shows me that we are failing our most vulnerable. It shows the other end of our country’s inequality spectrum, the end that needs to be ‘feed’ by society because the government controls the coin purse that doesn’t allow them to feed themselves.

      If Barry wants people to “get off their arses and help themselves”, perhaps he should stop telling them that taking pride and feeling a part of their indigenous culture will land them at Her Majesty’s pleasure. All that attitude ensures is that any Maori who believes Barry’s statements, or similar, will go out of his way to attempt to become Pakeha – which should not be the aspiration of any Maori.

      • Oh Trishtee – we are ALL actual or descedants of minorities of one type or another.

        My back ground is Irish & Scot. My irish forbears came to NZ after being chased across canada and queensland by english police. When they got here they faced adverts for jobs that had “INNA” – irish need not apply….

        My scot forbears got rounded up in the clearances and shipped of to canada – all by force.

        Now i could sit around and wail and moan (like some in Ireland) and complain that ‘Ive been robbed’. What a miserable life….
        Recently there is a group in the UK who are trying to sue the UK government for harm done to people in the carribean. They wont get much if at all and all that will result is a group of youngsters who have been brainwashed to believe its all the fault of the UK government. If youve ever been to the carribean youll find out that its the fault of only one lot – the locals.

        • barry says:
          April 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm

          Oh Trishtee – we are ALL actual or descedants of minorities of one type or another.

          My back ground is Irish & Scot. My irish forbears came to NZ after being chased across canada and queensland by english police. When they got here they faced adverts for jobs that had “INNA” – irish need not apply…

          Translation: You’re justifying colonialism/cultural destruction by pointing to other examples of colonialism/cultural destruction?! Injustice is ok because others have done it?

          Is that it?

          So if I steal your car, Barry, I can justify it by pointing to umpteen thousand other car thefts around the world?

          Is that your concept of justice?

          • Ummm… no but it does show you many other cultures have gone through similar historical injustice and aren’t focused on being victims. Also that other cultures can see positives as well as negatives in the whole colonial experience. Anybody reading the usual lefty pronouncements on this would think the whole thing was worse than torture. Remember many Maori Iwi voluntarily submitted to British rule. There had to be a reason for that.

            • Gosman says:
              April 17, 2014 at 4:38 pm

              […]

              “Remember many Maori Iwi voluntarily submitted to British rule. There had to be a reason for that.”

              If I held a musket to your head – and especially after the atrocity at Parihaka – I suspect you’d “voluntarily” submit as well.

              I really don’t know, Gosman, are you naive or stupid?!

          • “So if I steal your car, Barry, I can justify it by pointing to umpteen thousand other car thefts around the world?”

            As opposed to if my Maori neighbour steals my car he can justify it based on misdeeds done by people I have no relationship to hundreds of years ago?

  6. The settler mentality I described in this blog has been evidenced in the comments section. Their inability to acknowledge the plight of minorities and insistance on universalising their own pleasant experience of New Zealandville is spurious and defensive. Sentry Taitoko died in a South Auckland prison cell on 23 February and there is no Coroners report or information released because the NZ Police are trying to cover up that one or more of their staff is responsible for killing a man – a man arrested in his family home for disorderly behaviour with no good or sufficient reason. It was an unlawful arrest, detention and death. If the cops had come to the door and this had been a white guy instead of a Maori this person would not have wound up dead next morning in a South Auckland prison cell. We all appreciate that, even the racists. The fact that the media doesn’t care about this and that consequently no-one knows about this to be in a position to care or not care is also because the victim is not white. Kill a white man in custody and we would know all about it. There would be questions in parliament, editorials, outrage. Sentry Taitoko dies we have silence. So, how many of those killed by NZ Police are Maori? Most cops shoot first when they see a Maori – the stats will show that if they kept them. Waitara it has happened twice in ten years and is becoming a habit.

    Today’s blog by Efeso Collins and his experience of NZ Police at the airport are everyday stories that pop this bubble of European unreality. The European colonist’s contortions, ambivalence and untenable contradictions in justifying their domination is barely internally coherent let alone in any way externally plausible. Most of their argument is simple racist cant not worth debating, turning as it does, largely on nonsense (eg. that Maori had a low life expectancy before colonisation when every nation on Earth including the UK had life expectancy in the 30s until the beginning of the Victorian era) and premised on presumptions of exclusivity of technology and culture.

    The white Rhodesians credited themselves alone with bestowing civilisation on the remnant Zimbabwean Empire from 1890. They were opportunistic and took credit for everything, even if it was achieved from the sweat of the natives rather than the genius of the settler. No doubt some retired members of the British South Africa Police who were the regime until 1980 still think that. They needed this self-belief as the white New Zealanders need their belief in having brought civilisation benignly and generously to the ungrateful savage cannibal Maori – because it is essential to their identity, psychological self-esteem, sense of purpose and legitimacy, and rank in the social order. Without the superstructure of this Pakeha mythology there would indeed be no colonial situation – these prejudiced rants represent the ideology of the Colony, of New Zealand then and now.

    In an atomised and materialist society attached to the Western World all a white person has in a classless society is a bank balance and the colour of their skin. Racial equality, equality with Maori, is a hostile concept. They can’t keep their position if there is no-one to put underneath. Giving the land back, recognising and using Te Reo and Maori custom, is going to come at their expense – pyschologically, socially and economically and they know it. They see it as a loss, not a gain. They think they are in the majority and can jam their fingers in their ears, do a cringy racist rant and still expect to remain in charge. This is the tension.

    • “…everyday stories that pop this bubble of European unreality.”

      Really ? Do you really think these stories somehow have an influence on mainstream European New Zealand society?

      In my mind this only serves to illustrate the supposed inherent racisim ion the system to people like you who already have preconceived attitudes about the topic.

      That doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist here. I had an interesting experience in the Manawatu recently which showed me that NZ is a far more divided nation than I thought.

      However the more you bang on about how evil and nasty the dreaded ‘settler’ society is against non-Europeans specifically Maori the more people switch off. No bubbles are being popped by these sorts of stories.

    • Most cops shoot first when they see a Maori – the stats will show that if they kept them. Waitara it has happened twice in ten years…

      Most cops shoot first when they see their life threatened by a violent offender… In Waitara it has happened twice in ten years…

      FIFY

    • “In an atomised and materialist society attached to the Western World all a white person has in a classless society is a bank balance and the colour of their skin. Racial equality, equality with Maori, is a hostile concept. They can’t keep their position if there is no-one to put underneath. Giving the land back, recognising and using Te Reo and Maori custom, is going to come at their expense – pyschologically, socially and economically and they know it.”

      A rare assortment of complete and utter bullsh$$.

      I am a white european living in the western world and I can assure you I have far more than a bank balance and white skin. I have a culture I am proud of, a heritage I pass on through my children, a faith I embrace, a country of which I am immensely proud.

      Racial equality is not hostile to me, it is a bottom line of what I consider to be that most greatest of attributes, character. My neighbour is my equal, whether that neighbour be rich or poor, black, white or brown, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or atheist. Preserving Te Reo is something of which I greatly admire Maori, and I am proud that my children can correctly pronounce Maori places and names.

      I am not threatened by any of this, as much as I am (and I believe this country is) by white middle class liberal guilt peddlars, masquerading as Maori advocates. To hell with them all. Maori can speak and advocate for themselves; they can make their own way in the world, and do a pretty damn good job of it actually.

    • Gosman says don’t talk about it cause it’s a turn off (even though 40+ comments already)… speak no racism.
      Psycho Milt says white cops are allowed to shoot Maori cause they feel scared (even though the cops – as in the two Waitara cases – are the aggressor putting themselves in a kill situation before they are in danger, are encased in bullet-proof, stab-proof vests, have no-lethal alternatives available and are in proximity of other officers to assist them)… see no racism.
      INTRINSICVALUE says some incoherent nonsense ending with a non sequitur about Maori being able to make their own way in the world and advocating for themselves (and yet such an attempt – such as this blog – is roundly criticised )… hear no racism.

      • Where did I state don’t talk about it? I would love you to make this a big issue. No better turn off to left wing policies than being lectured to by some sanctimonious lefty on structural racism. More power to you brother.

          • Not if you start banging on about the inherent racist nature of the colonial settler society you won’t be. But by all means give that a go because I enjoy a good laugh at the left’s expense.

      • Psycho Milt says white cops are allowed to shoot Maori cause they feel scared…

        Psycho Milt says he isn’t going to second-guess cops who shoot an armed offender threatening them with a lethal weapon, because if it was him he most likely wouldn’t be able to stop pulling the trigger until the clip was empty. Ethnicity of the cops and offenders lacks relevance.

      • “and yet such an attempt – such as this blog – is roundly criticised”

        This blog was no such thing. It was an attempt to paint Maori as victims simply because they are overrepresented in the prison population and other negative statistics. Maori were victims of some despicable treatment, but so have been many people groups around the globe who don’t blame that on individual decisions to commit crime. When I’ve made mistakes and wound up in trouble, I have taken responsibility for my own actions, not sought to blame the norman conquest of Britain. Maori, and white liberal toadies, should do the same.

        • Intrinsicvalue says:
          April 16, 2014 at 9:58 pm

          […]

          When I’ve made mistakes and wound up in trouble, I have taken responsibility for my own actions, not sought to blame the norman conquest of Britain. Maori, and white liberal toadies, should do the same.

          The difference, IV, being that a Treaty was signed in 1840 to safeguard Maori interests, lands, assets, resources, etc.

          That Treaty was broken, using the superior fiere-power of the colonisers.

          It’s time to put things right, and not hide behind the sophistry of “Maori were victims of some despicable treatment, but so have been many people groups around the globe who don’t blame that on individual decisions to commit crime.”

          Pointing to other examples of injustice does not validate injustice – it just adds to it. (If I burgled your house and tried to justify it by pointing to 40,000 other burglaries around New Zealand, would that make it alright?)

          Have you ever thought about why every colonised society of indigenous peoples results in poverty, social alienation, and inevitably disproportionately high crime/imprisonment rates?

          • “It’s time to put things right…”

            Ah, hello! We’ve been doing that for decades! It’s time for the white liberal guilt trip to stop, and to let maori stand on their own two feet.

                • Nothing. Not feeling “guilty”. Just a sense of injustice.

                  You, on the other hand, seem very, very defensive, based on the inordinate interest you’ve taken in this issue, and your attempt to justify your racism with references to “Maori have enjoyed huge benefits from colonisation, including but not limited to, being dragged from a Stone Age culture into a people sharing equal rights in a modern society”.

                  After all, if you can reduce someone in stature, than it’s easier to justify exploiting them in the name of “helping” them…

                  What was the famous phrase used in Vietnam? “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it”…

                  They were from the “stone age” so colonists were justified in stealing their land, their resources, and demolishing their culture.

                  That is what you are feeling guilty about.

                  That is why you feel compelled to justify it with references to “being dragged from a Stone Age culture”.

                  If you weren’t feeling so guilty, why do you bother defending the indefensible?

                  • Maori culture and even language has not been destroyed. Maori also were not totally dispossessed of their land and are still in control of large chucks of productive land. You extremist views on this aren’t helpful at dealing with problems of Maori cultural revival and economic development.

  7. It seems Al Nesbit’s cartoon is also ageist.
    Although the Maori male is speaking, with all the school kids looking at him, there’s another couple beside him in school uniforms and carrying a bowl. These two appear to be depicted as an old, white couple.
    Way to go, Al, piss off the supping, “super” whites as well.

Comments are closed.