Taking Control Of The Nation’s Story.

63
1517

 

THE MAORI NATIONALIST assault upon the historical meaning and reputation of Captain James Cook is entirely understandable. With his arrival in October 1769 these islands ceased to be the preserve of Polynesian navigators and settlers and became a part of both the world’s map and the world’s history. It is this sudden and irreversible transformation that presents such a formidable obstacle to the Maori nationalist cause. Its proselytisers know that once Cook’s map of New Zealand was added to the global stock of human knowledge, the world of the Maori was doomed.  Small wonder that the outspoken Maori nationalist, Dr Arama Rata, recently described Cook’s ship, the Endeavour, as “a death ship”, and characterised his arrival as an “invasion”.

Maori nationalism is not, however, about mourning the loss of the pre-European world that Cook’s arrival made inevitable. It’s partisans are not so reactionary as to suppose that the restoration of the status quo ante is either possible or desirable. No matter how loudly they might lament the loss of life that accompanied the first encounters between Maori and Pakeha, they are well aware that no Maori would thank them for magically uplifting their children from twenty-first century New Zealand and dropping them into eighteenth century Aotearoa. No, what Maori nationalism seeks is a reversal ofpolitical fortunes: the creation of an Aotearoa-New Zealand in which Pakeha will no longer call the shots.

A radical revision of New Zealand and, indeed, of global history, is crucial to achieving this political reversal. The cultural and scientific achievements of the European peoples, especially their dramatic expansion into, and eventual subjugation of, practically every other significant land mass on the planet, must be re-cast as an horrific tale of murder, rape and theft – undertaken by that global human scourge which Dr Rata calls “white people”. Only when the general perception of European civilisation has become one of technological prowess unmitigated by compassion or restraint, and the colonisation process is presented as uniquely oppressive and destructive of land and people, will the nationalist cause enter its next and most important phase – that of radical constitutional transformation.

When it comes to effecting that transformation, a surprising amount of faith has been vested by Maori nationalists in demographic change. Surprising, because in their hopes of overtaking the Pakeha population at some point in the reasonably near future, the nationalists are showing a confusing degree of confidence that the rapacious colonisers will simply stand back and allow the balance of democratic power to shift irrevocably in favour of the tangata whenua. That this is most unlikely to happen is demonstrated by the fact that, for the last 30 years, the “White Settler Government” has presided over an immigration regime which saw the “Asian” population rise from fewer than 5 percent of the population to 15 percent – a figure rivalling that of Maori New Zealanders.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Was it purely a matter of chance that this rapid reshaping of New Zealand’s demographic structure coincided with the flowering of the “Maori Renaissance”? Or, is it evidence that the Maori population will never be permitted to rise to a level where the dominance of European political and economic models is threatened? Have Maori nationalists not noted the change in the official terminology used to describe New Zealand society: from “bicultural” to “multicultural”? The determination of the New Zealand state to integrate its domestic economic institutions ever more inextricably in the global economy renders the Maori nationalist project ever more problematic.

From the nationalists’ perspective, the only hopeful aspect to the present situation is the enormously high level of historical ignorance in the New Zealand population – especially in the young. Forty years of failure to present a coherent historical narrative to successive generations of students has left young New Zealanders prey to the anachronistic blame-gaming of Maori nationalists. Descriptions of Cook as a “colonialist” and, even more risibly, a “white supremacist”, have been swallowed whole by those Pakeha disposed to range themselves against the negative effects of racism and colonisation on contemporary Maori. If Maori nationalist historians can seize control of the new, soon-to-be-compulsory, history curriculum, then the necessary ideological preparations can be made for a radical constitutional transformation. Only thus can the historic reversal of Maori fortunes, which began on the day the Endeavour arrived off the New Zealand coast 250 years ago, be overturned.

But only if the “White Settler State” is a great deal less determined to maintain its power and privilege than the Maori nationalists have, so far, been willing to admit.

63 COMMENTS

  1. If Maori do win political control in NZ, it won’t be very long before we have regressed back to a tribalist society, and all the division that would bring. Northland would be a good indication of where we would be headed

    • well Chris we are getting sick and tired of being called savages when in fact the coloniser were in fact savages themselves

      • Maori culture was indeed a significant Neolithic culture , the type of culture which the colonists ancestors had emerged from some 5,000+ years earlier.
        The first meeting of Maoridom and Europeans must have been quite a culture shock, for both parties. Especially for the Europeans who believed the inhabitants of this land practiced cannibalism, which sounds pretty primitive.
        I wouldn’t call Maori or the colonialist savages, they both killed, just the colonialist were better at killing .
        Maoridom was technologically stagnant due to their isolation, there seems to be a romantic view from some sections of Maoridom that life prior to the arrival of Europeans was harmonious group of tribes managing the available resources in a fair and caring manner and this is simply far from the facts of life at the time.
        I’m tied of hearing how bad the arrival of the Europeans was for Maori, I do have regrets that Maoridom seem to have been changed from a strong confident ,warrior culture to one of a poor me , life is not fair, victim mentality, guess that our fault as well,being the oppressors.

        • well boo who for you david were tired of all your bias bullshit diatribe too david and given we have the worst stats we have good grounds to keep rumbling too bad your had it your way for far too long and your still not happy with your lot and your colonial monopoly over everything

        • Great post and completely agree – also over hearing that Maori were much more considered custodians of the land when the extinction of Moa clearly suggests otherwise.

          • Are you sure you want to use extinction events as a metric for controlling land and resources because no other system has caused more extinction than the capitalist system. The World Wars was a war against capitalists nations. That killed 200 million people. This isn’t ABC logic where because A beats B there for C. You just drunk the kool aid so hard you don’t even know.

        • David: “Maoridom was technologically stagnant due to their isolation…”

          That’s correct. The first Polynesians to come here were likely a pretty small group. And although they brought skills and technology with them, it would have been consistent with what Polynesians in the Pacific Islands had at that time: stone age. Given their isolation, there was no chance of interaction with the people in Polynesia to take advantage of any technological advances. There’s evidence that, by the time of Cook’s arrival, they’d already, centuries earlier, lost the ability or resources (or both) to build ocean-going waka.

          “…..there seems to be a romantic view from some sections of Maoridom that life prior to the arrival of Europeans was harmonious group of tribes managing the available resources in a fair and caring manner and this is simply far from the facts of life at the time.”

          Ah yes, the myths humans construct for themselves, eh? It’s certainly true that, at the time of first contact with Europeans, Maori were managing seafood stocks sustainably. But that had been perforce, after they’d eaten to extinction all of the large flightless birds, and put fish and seafood stocks under pressure from unsustainable harvesting practices. Much of the inter-tribal fighting would have been over access to food resources.

          Many years ago, I read a paper in which it was postulated that, had Cook not returned to NZ and given Maori pigs, goats and chickens, there’d have been a population crash due to starvation. At that time, food resources were running low, and Maori were unable to return even to the closest islands – the Cooks, I think – to obtain extra food resources, because they no longer had access to ocean-going waka. I haven’t been able to find that paper, but I found this:

          https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.160258

        • David: ” Especially for the Europeans who believed the inhabitants of this land practiced cannibalism, which sounds pretty primitive.”

          They did. Scarcely surprising, given that, by the time of Cook’s arrival, they were very short of animal protein. Although other meanings were constructed around the practice. See this:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_massacre

          • Sorry to interrupt your little club, De’Esterre But what agony might maori want to adopt from non-maori over the right to conquer and subjugate land. This isn’t a Māori responsibility and it’s been tragic the way it’s been handled. Thanks to SOUL and Ihumatao the solutions are not very easy to construct or easy to come by. A few years ago there were treaty settlements but at this point unions have been smashed, workers rights have been smashed, even when unemployment is low workers are so frightened to even ask for a raise or better benefits. Immigrations is still suppressing wages for everyone. They way things have been left to just roll over for the last 200 years is always going to end up in extreme conflict of something isn’t done to ameliorate the conditions in which conflict can erupt.

            I think it’s primarily a pakeha responsibility in this case. Former Governor Generals of New Zealand insisted on a very rapid break up and confiscation of Māori land and Y’know if you check the history books Governor Grey had to call on the commonwealth for troops. Confiscating Waikato Land is pretty straight forward. Pakeha saw Waikato and it’s wealth and power and couldn’t accept that so Māori had to be pushed off the productive land. The insistence that this was done to help Māori develop with the help of foreign fighters is a guarantee of war. That Captain Cook brought foreign fighters with him is also a guarantee of war and of course the spill over from Cooks first contacts just maximised everything going wrong.

            Now at this point when you ask for constructive proposals it’s easy to suggest Māori retaliate but a substantial amount of effort is out into imagining improvements. To deal with the problem in any constructive fashion is not easy especially for Māori and especially when everyone else is saying oh it was all the maaris fault, they are so backwards, why can’t they see what pakeha is trying to do for the maari. I get that you, De Esterre believe that Māori are deficient and that’s the problem with when one side is negotiating in bad faith.

            • Sam: “…..at this point unions have been smashed, workers rights have been smashed, even when unemployment is low workers are so frightened to even ask for a raise or better benefits. Immigrations is still suppressing wages for everyone.”

              What you’re describing here are the malign effects – on working class NZ society generally, disproportionately on working class Maori – of the neoliberalism foisted on us by the Lange government, beginning in 1984.

              You’ll get no disagreement from me about that: we were among those whacked about the ears by Rogernomics.

              I am one of several commenters here who’ve pointed out that neoliberalism is one of the factors (along with the swingeing benefit cuts of the early 90s and the curse of drugs) driving the desperate situation of working class Maori nowadays. Blaming colonisation or colonialism is pointless and futile: to do that is to look in the wrong direction.

              “Confiscating Waikato Land is pretty straight forward.”

              Yeah, I know about the land confiscations in various parts of NZ; I’ve read quite a bit of the history. That was a monumental injustice, with tragic consequences. But it cannot now be rectified, without potentially creating a raft of fresh injustices. All of the confiscated land has passed into private ownership, including Maori ownership. Nobody now alive bears any responsibility for the wrongs of the past. We are all legitimately citizens of this country; if we have bought land, we are entitled to peaceful enjoyment of it, regardless of its provenance.

              Some of that land can possibly be returned to Maori by means of the iwi buying it from landowners who are willing to sell. But if owners aren’t willing to sell, there’s nothing to be done about it.

              “…Captain Cook brought foreign fighters with him…”

              No. He did not. Cook’s expedition was primarily scientific, not military. He had ship’s crew with him, not soldiers. Do you not know this aspect of history?

              And while we’re at it; with regard to Cook, his first contact with Maori in Gisborne was – notoriously – in 1769. In the last little while, I’ve heard modern-day Gisborne Maori refer to Cook’s visit as an “invasion”. It must be noted that there was no further contact with Europeans until the early 1830s, when the first white settlers arrived in Gisborne. Characterising Cook’s visit as an invasion is somewhat of an overstatement.

              “Now at this point when you ask for constructive proposals it’s easy to suggest Māori retaliate but a substantial amount of effort is out into imagining improvements. To deal with the problem in any constructive fashion is not easy especially for Māori and especially when everyone else is saying oh it was all the maaris fault, they are so backwards, why can’t they see what pakeha is trying to do for the maari. I get that you, De Esterre believe that Māori are deficient and that’s the problem with when one side is negotiating in bad faith.”

              Now where the hell did you get this from? Certainly not from me: I’ve said no such thing. Have you been interviewing your keyboard again?

              • In think her majesty would disagree that her Navy is maned by primarily scientists and not military. She may even let out a bit of a chuckle.

                • Sam: “In think her majesty would disagree that her Navy is maned by primarily scientists and not military. She may even let out a bit of a chuckle.”

                  Again: Cook’s voyage was primarily a scientific expedition, funded by the Royal Society.

                  His ship carried security, as did all such ships, against what might befall them on the open ocean. Pirates, eg.

                  But he did not bring a military force, so as to effect a military invasion. That wasn’t the purpose of his visit.

                  Enough with the revisionism! And the presentism…. neither aids your cause, such as it is.

      • How so?

        The colonisation of New Zealand was relatively peaceable by world standards. If that sounds weird, it’s because of how bad it was in other places. Look at Pizarro’s conquest of the Inca Empire or the sad tale of the Belgian Congo to see how bad things can get when people really try. The worst atrocities in New Zealand history were during the Musket Wars, in which the colonists played no real part.

        That’s not to say we don’t have big problems that need addressing–there’s plenty left to do. But we should be honest about our history and our problems and deal with what actually happened rather than making stuff up.

  2. It isn’t helped by the poor state of history and the humanities in general. People seem incapable of viewing history without assigning ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’ rather than simply seeing ordinary human beings in many cases subject to social, technological, and environmental constraints beyond their control. We need a clean out.

  3. allan your comment is both racist and ignorant do some homework what were our whanau doing in Parihaka before they were raped, killed and imprisoned without trial and these people weren’t practising savagery the savages were the pakeha troups

    • While there is credible evidence of elements of the armed constabulary committing rape during the seizure of Parihaka on 5 November 1881, Michelle, there is no credible evidence of anyone being killed.

      Those taken prisoner by the colonial government at Parihaka were treated in much the same way as “enemy combatants” taken during US operations in Afghanistan. They passed into a sort of legal twilight zone.

      Their forcible removal to, and detention in, Dunedin was an egregious denial of their right to equal treatment under the Treaty of Waitangi – something which was loudly protested at the time.

      Not all the Pakeha living in New Zealand in 1881 were as savage as the politician responsible for launching the assault on Parihaka.

      • Chris Trotter: “While there is credible evidence of elements of the armed constabulary committing rape during the seizure of Parihaka on 5 November 1881, Michelle, there is no credible evidence of anyone being killed.”

        I’m pleased to see that you’ve contradicted Michelle’s assertions about Parihaka. The accounts I’ve read make no mention of deaths. In the past, we knew somebody who’d had a good deal to do with Parihaka; that person flatly contradicted those claims.

        No question that the government’s behaviour over Parihaka reflected very poorly upon it. No question, either, that the government had been outsmarted (and humiliated) by the tactics of passive resistance. Its resultant actions were shameful and vindictive, but not murderous.

  4. allan your comment is both racist and ignorant do some homework what were our whanau doing in Parihaka before they were raped, killed and imprisoned without trial and these people weren’t practising savagery the savages were the pakeha troups

  5. allan your comment is both racist and ignorant do some homework what were our whanau doing in Parihaka before they were raped, killed and imprisoned without trial and these people weren’t practising savagery the savages were the pakeha troups

  6. allan your comment is both racist and ignorant do some homework what was our whanau doing in Parihaka before they were raped, killed and imprisoned without trial and these people weren’t practising savagery the savages were the pakeha troups

  7. The fact that NZ’s history needs to be told honestly was exemplified by a serving Prime Minister, Key, glibly stating that NZ had been settled “peacefully.” Mind you, his own family had only been in the country five minutes – which made his determination to change to NZ flag to suit his own tacky taste, even more offensive.

    There have been excellent accurate accounts of our beginnings written by non-Maori, such as Claudia Orange, AU’s Andrew Sharp’s , ‘Justice and The Maori’, a substantial body of work from both Maori and non-Maori, and you do non-Maori no favours if you are implying that only Maori can narrate honestly and accurately. Remember Doug Grahame ? He could move Pakeha audiences to tears when addressing Treaty issues right around the country.

    To change our Westminster system of government to favour any one group would require a constitutional overhaul which is unlikely to ever happen as it would be racist. We are, like it or not, a multi-cultural country, and more and more that is being reflected in the ethnic mix in Parliament.

    The Waitangi Tribunal has been plugging away addressing very real Maori grievances without, as you seem to be suggesting, having to boot Pakeha out of Parliament.

  8. It could be borne in mind that one of Cook’s objectives , which he failed at on his second voyage, was to get his ship , his discoveries, his navigational advances as much of his crews possible and himself home to England in one piece. That was a serious challenge as they did not know at any landing how they would be received but they did know they would be heavily outnumbered and their weapon superiority was all they had to work with. Shooting first and asking questions afterwards was probably necessary to ensure a return to England.
    They had nothing to suggest the New Zealand would be safer than Tahiti. And it probably was not.
    Some realism and practicality should be incorporated into our view of history. We are no less violent a species now than we were back then either if you look around the world. But on the domestic violence front we have no need to to look off shore.
    D J S

    • David Stone: “They had nothing to suggest the New Zealand would be safer than Tahiti. And it probably was not.”

      It certainly hadn’t been for Tasman, hence Murderers’ Bay. So Cook would’ve been properly cautious. The shootings in Gisborne resulted from cultural misunderstanding between Maori and Cook’s party: scarcely surprising. Maori would’ve done the same, had they had access to muskets.

      Shooting first etc is a time-honored tradition, still practised by US police. Or so I hear.

        • “WE AINT IN THE US D ESTERER”

          Oh dear, Michelle, who can’t or won’t spell my nom de guerre correctly; herewith evidence – yet again – that you either don’t read or can’t comprehend what other people write. What the hell has the US got to do with anything?

          If you’ve got something substantive to contribute to the debate, contribute away. But if all you can manage is ad hom and insult, then you’d be best to go find something else to do.

  9. “White Fright” again? Hilarious really, given that the Māori people were swamped by planned mass immigration according to James Bellich and others, and now Pākehā and Euro NZers whinge about Asian and muslim swamping of them–despite the actual numbers.

    Māori Nationalism will likely largely melt away once important things in life for Māori are on par with white statistics. Neo liberalism has exacerbated post colonial fall out in my view by consigning many Māori to the underclass–the children of Roger’n’Ruth. Douglas was great at sacking people and selling off public infrastructure–but totally deficient at retraining and taking the working class population forward.

    Having read numerous “Cook Books”–and there are many to choose from out there, and TV series–“Cook the crook” was obviously a skilled and fortuitous mariner, and some of the science involved amazing. But that is where it ends in terms of him being a positive force. Comparing eras is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome but until Māori people are no longer oppressed in various ways it drags everyone down.

    • Tiger Mountain: “Māori Nationalism will likely largely melt away once important things in life for Māori are on par with white statistics.”

      I agree. Neoliberalism, the savage benefit cuts of the early 90s, and the malign influence of drugs have all done terrible damage to working class Maori society.

      The dispute at Ihumatao is illustrative of a class issue: a fight between moneyed Maori elites and the desperately impoverished Maori working class.

      Reversing those benefit cuts is just about the only thing the government can now do to ameliorate the dire situation of so many Maori. I think such a move would have beneficial effects far beyond just beneficiaries themselves.

      The current government has the cash to do it: the only thing lacking is courage, as far as I can see.

      “Cook the crook” was obviously a skilled and fortuitous mariner, and some of the science involved amazing.”

      Cook was a remarkable individual. But he was also a man of his times. Contemporary attempts to paint him as a blackguard are just revisionism – and that curse of the woke left: presentism.

        • SPC: “Conflation of the progressive POV as presentism is a fallacy. Progressive and or Utopian is futuristic.”

          You know what presentism is, right? If not, please look it up.

  10. Good post Chris, thanks.

    Close scrutiny of the ideas behind Maori Nationalism exposes it as a complete fraud.
    For starters, the majority of those touting the idea are already more than 50% genetically European. New Zealand has a long history of intermarriage and for many years the majority of Maori have intermarried non-Maori (ref: Ethnic intermarriage in New Zealand by Paul Callister) so in the fullness of time the term Maori will be about as relevant as ‘Scottish’ was in the UK’s Scotland independence referendum (the definition was to be resident of Scotland for five years or more and included large numbers of Poles, Romanians and Hungarians 🙂 ).

    It is heartening to know that the majority of those with Maori ancestry choose to be on the general electoral register and when the lists were open for change about a year ago, the Maori register suffered a net loss of voters.

    It is an attempt to put people in an ethnic box and treat them as a museum exhibit rather than treating them as individuals. It’s a bit like saying I must be a fan of morris dancing because I was born in England. I refuse to be defined in those terms, just as those with an element of Maori ancestry should. Fine if they wish to adopt some cultural customs, language or whatever, but that’s up to individual choice.

    So exactly who are these people pushing this racial bandwagon? I suggest they are either race-baiters intent on either personal financial gain or political power or well-intentioned fools. You decide.

    • Well I believe in the four tools of learning. First is unconscious-bias, then conscious-bias, then conscious-impartiality, and finally unconscious-impartiality.

      Most people don’t know what they don’t know. They just spin around at the bottom switching from unconscious to conscious-bias. Let’s be honest these are below 90 IQ individuals who are prey to every scam, charlatan and ABC logic. They just get fed lies in order to control who to vote for.

      So once you have an awareness you understand how the system takes advantage of below 90 IQ individuals, you’ve made a little bit of money, own a home. So there’s no where else to go. The lies have all been used up. You realize you’ve just been working for some scam the whole time, that would be conscious-impartiality.

      Y’know once you’ve paid the mortgage off that’s when you’re education really starts to kick in because you realize that by now all of your hard work is now you’re own and everything becomes unconscious and you’re attention to detail spikes, Y’know math and English and knowledge of history just gets better and it’s like auto pilot for people who want to become better people.

    • now we are all 50% pakeha andrew this ones is always pulled out but have we been treated as pakeha or the same as pakeha nah! stop talking through a hole in your backside you don’t know your white

  11. Its good to see someone generally respected take on the Maori extremists without fear of being called a racist. However there will be no honest discussion about this until some of the misinformation surrounding Maori ‘facts’ is challenged. For example the following is taken as an unquestioned truth:-

    “For the last 30 years, the “White Settler Government” has presided over an immigration regime which saw the “Asian” population rise from fewer than 5 percent of the population to 15 percent – a figure rivalling that of Maori New Zealanders.”
    It is simply not true that 15% of the NZ population is Maori. This figure is quoted from Census returns, but the question asked is not “Are you of Maori birth?” The question asked is ” To which racial group do you identify?”, which is a completely meaningless question. If the question is addressed to me I can answer “Caucasian” and have a Birth certificate passport to support it. I dont *identify* with that group, I actually am *caucasian*.but I could have identified with Maori if I chose. This makes nonsense of the question.
    There is no definition of what a Maori actually is. If every citizen had an ID card which carried a DNA identifier, plus other info (such as blood type for instance) it would be possible to set a line beyond which that citizen would be considered a Maori. I assume that to identify as Maori, his blood line should be at least 50% of Maori.
    I am sure it can be done more scientifically than that but I doubt if more than 2% would pass that test. If the figure is around 15% as frequently quoted, why does the Maori Party attract only 2% of voters? This suggests that they have no faith in their own leaders, or simply dont care and the Maori movement is just a lot of noise with no substance.
    Further, if a blood test was required, Maori population can only diminish because the pure line ended with white invasion, so the number of those with Maori blood can only increase by becoming weaker per person.

  12. In 2015, 15 percent of New Zealand’s population identified with the Māori ethnic group. Among children (under 15 years), the share is higher, at 26 percent. Depending on future trends in birth rates, the Māori population could account for nearly 20 percent of New Zealand’s population in 2038, and nearly one-third of New Zealand’s children.

    http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/maori/maori-population-article-2015.aspx

    So despite the impact of immigration, it’s still on an upward trend.

    Naturally the indigenous perspective on our history will be heavily influenced by (Maori) nationalists, as it once was by apologists for the colonial project before the progressive revisionism. One would suspect the schools will offer the progressive viewpoint as standard and the Maori nationalist as the alternative (leaving the Don Brash sect to the wilderness).

    • SPC,at the time you wrote this I had already pointed out that “identified with” is a weasel word that has no meaning and it is virtually impossible for Maori blood stock to increase by any authentic means. Didn’t you read it?
      Incidentally by 1860 the white population of NZ had already passed that of Maori, (largely due to the unfortunate Maori habit of slaughtering each other).

      • Have you not noticed the blog is moderated (your post would not have been displayed until the afternoon)?

        And FYI, identified with, is a reasonable definition – as an iwi would include those with an ancestor in that iwi. Of course many Maori today have ancestors from more than one iwi. All those with such ancestry can identify as Maori, though not all do. So the number who identify as Maori would be lower than those with an iwi ancestor.

        The reason the number of Maori is increasing is twofold – both inter-marriage and a higher birth rate.

  13. “The story prolongs the suffering”.

    BTW – are Maori who export themselves to Australia in search of a more comfortable lifestyle also classed as ‘colonists’?

    • I don’t remember being exported to Aus maybe you have us (Maori) confused with sheep or cows andrea are you referring to the Maori tax payers who have to come back here like many other Nzers for cancer and other health treatments

  14. alan that is racist and discriminative comment implying brown people cant run a country what happened in Parihaka alan or are you one of those dumb pakeha that doesn’t know anything as usual and therefore makes shit up and sterotypes and disciminates

  15. It wasn’t white colonists who arrived with The Endeavour, but Capitalism in the form of white colonists

  16. “But only if the “White Settler State” is a great deal less determined to maintain its power and privilege than the Maori nationalists have, so far, been willing to admit.”

    We do not have a white settler state in this country. We have a modern representative democracy.

      • Michelle: “we do have white settler state in this country d estere under neo liberalism”

        We have neoliberalism. We don’t have a white settler state: we have a modern representative democracy.

  17. now we are all 50% pakeha andrew anoterh lien is wqe were treated batter than the aboriginals in Aus wow aren’t we lucky these lines are always pulled out but have we been treated as pakeha or the same as pakeha nah! stop talking through a hole in your backside you don’t know your white

  18. Now we are all 50% pakeha andrew another bullshit line and anoterh ones is ‘we were treated better than the aboriginals in Aus’ wow! aren’t we lucky these lines are always pulled out but have we been treated as pakeha or the same as pakeha nah! stop talking through a hole in your backside you don’t know your white

  19. Now we are all 50% pakeha andrew another bullshit line and anoterh ones is ‘we were treated better than the aboriginals in Aus’ wow! aren’t we lucky these lines are always pulled out but have we been treated as pakeha or the same as pakeha nah! stop talking through a hole in your backside you don’t know your white

  20. Kia ora Chris
    The Key government’s decision to stage national celebrations for the 250th anniversary of Cook’s arrival on our shores was decidedly odd and it was strange that the following government of Jacinda Ardern failed to see the entirely predictable divisions that it would provoke in New Zealand society – the exact opposite of what “Te Tuia” evidently intended.
    The colonial political establishment sincerely believed that the person of Dame Jenny Shipley invoking the name of Captain James Cook RN would be enough to bring all New Zealanders together in a moment of colonialist unity a.k.a. “Te Tuia”.
    How could they have got it so wrong? That is the question you should be asking. And after that you should ask whether there is a future for a regime which is can be so out of touch with the mood of the people and so convinced that we can be intoxicated by a cocktail of colonial history stirred by one who personifies economic savagery, corporate fraud and economic treason.
    Instead, you launch into a critique of what you choose to call “Maori nationalism”. You find within the academic establishment an individual who perceives (or at least portrays) the challenges facing us in racial rather than political terms. No surprises there. The colonial regime, particularly in its current multicultural phase, holds strictly to the dogma that social and political conflict in New Zealand is all about race and nothing but race. Dr Rata has assimilated that dogma well and voices it strongly, but her audience is largely restricted to the colonial academic establishment and the regime which funds her work.
    You write that “The world of the Maori was doomed” by the arrival of European explorers.
    That is wrong. Te ao Maori is alive and thriving. Maori have suffered defeats and won victories but there has been no historical inevitability attached to either victory or defeat. Outcomes have depended on the strategy and tactics adopted given a particular balance of forces and social conditions, and those social conditions and the balance of forces are currently moving in our favour, despite what you and most political pundits might suggest.
    You say that “If Maori nationalist historians can seize control of the new, soon-to-be-compulsory, history curriculum, then the necessary ideological preparations can be made for a radical constitutional transformation.”
    Wrong again. One can seize control of a propaganda machine, but no one can “seize control” of the truth, and in any case constitutional change does not depend on what takes place in the schools or universities of the colonial regime. It will come through the will of the people, Maori and Pakeha, who have had enough of everything that Dame Jenny Shipley and the colonial regime represent.
    By turning the spotlight on to so-called “Maori nationalists” who are but the shadow side of British colonialism you just muddy the waters of the debate.
    The fact is that “Te Tuia” was a huge political mistake, which points to the impending doom of colonialism – not of Maori.

  21. well boo who for you david were tired of all your bias bullshit diatribe too david and given we have the worst stats we have good grounds to keep rumbling too bad your had it your way for far too long and your still not happy with your lot and your colonial monopoly over everything

  22. only one group is the privileged ones in this country and we all know who they are , the ones writing shit and making evil comments on this blog site who don’t like being called out but too bad

  23. only one group is the privileged ones in this country and we all know who they are , the ones writing shit and making evil comments on this blog site who don’t like being called out but too bad

  24. Good post Chris. I have long contended that demographic marginalization is modus operandi number one of keeping the indigenous people of Aotearoa suppressed. Had the liberalisation of immigration, and consequent rapid growth in population, not occurred 30 years ago Maori would now make up 20-25% of the population. The only other country that uses such an approach is Israel and we know what the woke left thinks of that place so why the hell don’t they open their eyes and stand up for the indigenous people of Aotearoa too. Can you answer that question?

    • As all people in NZ are immigrants and descendants of immigrants it means NZ does not have any indigenous people.

      • If you are going to follow your reasoning then all people everywhere are not indigenous, except maybe some somewhere in Africa.
        Maori are indigenous as after our ancestors arrived in Aotearoa our culture became embedded in this land. Our ancestors and origin faded into almost mythology. Maybe you could call Maori first nations people but either way our claim to this land still stands.

  25. The Maori cause is done and dusted, the ‘Crown’ and the settlers were never serious about having an ‘equal’ partner run the show. And for the future, we will have more multicultural efforts made (more diverse immigration to keep Maori in a minority), so that the ones who really run the show stay in control of all. DIVIDE and RULE is the motto.

    They are not bothered with race and culture, the ones pulling the strings, they want to run an ‘economy’ to generate output and profits for the vested interest holders, period.

    So bringing in more ‘Asians’ is no problem for them, and this country cannot even be called ‘a nation’, as a nation is something different to what these isles filled with slave working immigrants and their descendants, plus the elite and sub elite in control, would represent.

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/nation

    “A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”

    So get real, Maori have a shit chance to get anywhere, unless they become a freedom fighting guerilla movement, seeking greater control that way.

  26. Dame shipley would have been well rewarded for her work, remember national thought they were going to get back in and they did not consult as they should have because they don’t care and they think they don’t have to answer to anyone but our taxes paid for that

  27. Not that anyone will address it, but in the same week of the 250th anniversary here in Gisborne we elected a right wing council with a right wing South African mayor. Here is a desperate housing crisis which affects the most desperate (or to say, the brown) desperately which she didn’t address at all. Here’s our new New Zealand. Fit for a fucken … I’ll say it since we don’t know anything … apart hater.

Comments are closed.