In response to an earlier blog on the He Puapua report I’ve had some email correspondence from people opposed to what they see as separatism and favouritism towards Māori. Here is a letter I received a few days ago and my response underneath. I’m putting this into a blog because the issues are real for many people however poorly they are sometimes expressed.
Dear John,
It may be true that without land , as such, nobody could survive, except those living on the waters . Nor is it likely , civilisation would occur without it . Hence , early settlers of New Zealand (such as Kupe ) would still be living in huts with earthen floors driving nothing but their canoes and blistered feet . Whatever else has occurred internationally , maoris have a lot to be thankful for .
Tribalism contains no democracy and no form of monies . An alphabet did not exist nor did mathematics . Consequences of civilisation .
The 85% of New Zealanders who pay most if not all , the taxes in this country , did not exist , he puapua would be up the creek without a paddle . And so would their supporters . To revert to tribalism is certainly a step in the backwards tradition .
You fought against a minority who controlled a majority and repressed the same . Now , we have a minority being favoured with money and power to do the same . And forcing the majority to speak a language which is foreign and of little use outside New Zealand .
The children graduating from Maori Schools , are exceptionally poor in reading and understanding English and very poor in basis arithmetic .
Not a good sign for future leaders and businesses .
And to think 550 maori doctors looking after a population of 800,000 is not a healthy system . And maraes and most iwi businesses do not pay taxes . So , you are 1/2 right…..maoris could NOR finance themselves . BUT , the other 85% could happily finance themselves , and do .
Pete
Kia ora Pete,
Thank you for responding. I think your ideas are based on long-standing resentments and prejudices which in my experience are common in the older generation of New Zealanders. Earlier in my life I probably would have shared some of your views but I’ve become a lot better informed about the history of Aotearoa with its wholesale confiscations of Māori land, the destruction of Māori culture, language and the Māori economy. We have a desperate need for all of us to understand our history better, warts and all, which is why I’m a strong supporter of the proposed new history curriculum.
I’m taking the time to respond with a few points of my own because I think debate and discussion is healthy and we all need to believe in the capacity of our fellow citizens to change and modify their ideas when they read different perspectives. I hope you give these responses some serious thought.
- Don’t confuse technological development with “civilisation”. Most of the sailors on Cook’s ships would have seen the lives of many Māori as better than their own in 1769. Most sailors were illiterate, there was no education system or health system and they had no vote. They faced brutal inhumane punishments and their lives counted for little. They were not much more than slaves and were kept that way by the British ruling class.
- There are four problems with you using the word “maoris”. Firstly there is no “s” in the Māori language so leave it off. Secondly there should be a capital letter M and thirdly you should use a macron over the ā as it has a longer sound than the o which follows it. Fourthly, because of the previous three points, it is disrespectful.
- No-one is suggesting a return to what you call “tribalism” except in the sense that most Māori want to assert their rights to “tino rangatiratanga” (self-determination) which was specifically promised to them under the Treaty of Waitangi. Discussion about democracy within iwi and hapu is an issue for Māori themselves where tribal leadership and democratic decision making are being intensely and hotly debated, just as these issues are debated within Pākehā society and across the country as a whole.
- You are wrong about taxes when you suggest the Pākehā majority pay almost all the taxes. Working class New Zealanders – Maori, Pasifika and European – on the lowest incomes pay a HIGHER proportion of their income in tax than anyone else. A person on the minimum wage for example pays about 15% of their income in income tax and a further 14% of their income on GST. That’s a total of almost 30% of their income paid in tax. The wealthiest New Zealanders on the other hand who get their income from capital gains on shares etc pay less than 10% of their income in tax. (The typically pay no income tax because they don’t receive wages or salaries and they pay less than 5% of their income on GST because they can save most of their income rather than spend it) Therefore because Māori are generally on lower incomes than Pākehā – Māori pay HIGHER proportions of their incomes in tax than Pākehā. I see from your address that you live in an area with a high Māori population so the next time you see your working class Māori neighbours – thank them for paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than most New Zealanders.
- It’s true I fought against the apartheid system in South Africa which was a brutal racist system designed to oppress black South Africans and have them work for measly wages in capitalist factories and mines. However government support for Māori initiatives is not designed to oppress anyone – it’s simply a belated attempt to recognise the extra barriers Maori face in areas such as health, education and employment.
- We do have a “minority favoured with money and power” in Aotearoa but it isn’t Māori. It’s the 1% wealthiest New Zealanders – very few of whom are Maori.
- Despite what you seem to think, Māori have received only a piddling amount from successive governments. For example the TOTAL payouts to iwi through the Waitangi Tribunal process since the very beginning is a modest $2.2 billion – around 3% of the actual value lost to Māori through theft of their land and destruction of their economy brought about by racism and colonisation. Compare this with the more than $2 billion the government paid out to wealthy investors in finance companies such as South Canterbury Finance when they collapsed through appalling mismanagement at the time of the global financial crisis and you start to understand how the economy is not there for Māori or working class New Zealanders. It’s being run for the wealthy.
- Te Reo Māori is the indigenous language of this country. If any language here is foreign it is English. You are not being forced to learn Te Reo but I hope the day will come soon when it is a compulsory part of our school curriculum – alongside other compulsory subjects like English and Maths. It will be a tremendous step forward for the whole country. Aside from anything else, an understanding of a second language has huge educational benefits to children in their other subjects as well.
- The children graduating from Kura Kaupapa Māori schools are doing better than Māori graduating from the public education system generally so please don’t spread lazy lies based on the prejudices of others.
- There is no shortage of incredible Māori leaders emerging – I’m constantly astonished at the amazing young people, especially young Māori women, who are showing up all over the country, despite the huge barriers many of them face. All of us living in Aotearoa New Zealand should be proud of them. I’ve taught too many Māori, Pasifika and working class students who have had to leave school early because they had to become breadwinners for their families. For a teacher this is devastating but much more so for the students. I could give you numerous examples from my personal experience. You might have seen a report on TVNZ a few nights ago which featured a young Māori woman in exactly that same position despite her having a promising future in sport and higher education.
- You are right that 550 Māori doctors is nowhere near enough. Maori health statistics are dreadful and are worse than those for the working class generally. The proposed Maori health agency is a brilliant move in the right direction. Māori live for seven years less that Pākehā on average – “by Māori for Māori” is part of the way forward.
- Iwi businesses pay taxes the same as any other business although I agree there are serious issues with companies like Sanitarium which claims to be a charity and pays no tax.
Pete, I hope I haven’t wasted my time asking you to consider these things. I think it’s important people raise issues as you have because if they stay unsaid they will fester and build unjustified resentments.
I don’t want to sound patronising but I’d like to suggest you get Vincent O’Malley’s book “The Great War for New Zealand” out from your library and have a go at reading it while putting yourself in the shoes of Waikato Māori as they tried to defend their land and people against a brutal, aggressive, rapacious enemy. It’s a long book but it’s well written and easy to read. I think you will find it eye-opening. If it’s too much to read then just focus on the battles at Rangiaowhia and the famous battle at Orākau Pā – Rewi’s last stand.
Thank you John, an excellent response to someone who really does not understand how difficult it is for Maori to succeed in today’s environment. The saying that “when Maori succeed we all succeed” is so important for all of us to understand.
Maori have been facing unbelievable hurdles for too long, it is now time for the playing field to be levelled.
Unfortunately there are many “Pete’s” who really need to lift their heads out of the sand and show some basic understanding of the problems that many face in this country.
He Puapua may be a good start in the right direction.
Kia John, and Martyn and Chris Trotter to. This is so so spicy.
Great answers John, definitely not time wasted as others on TDB have now had the chance to read also.
I do my bit as a Pākehā to challenge people like Pete in daily life. The sad fact is if you spend any time with euro males of a certain age, in a “whites only” situation, the racism towards Māori soon appears.
The good news is the boomer replacement generations seem on the whole less fearful of Māori doing well and being assertive.
History that starts at the signing of the treaty does a disservice to all races. 500 Chiefs didn’t just suddenly decide to sign a treaty with the crown. in fact it was partly their idea in the first place. Without the context of why they agreed it makes no sense. If you are going to teach NZ/AO history, tell it all.
Would you care to elucidate Kim? Your opening gambit suggests an agenda that may be in line with the Hobson’s Pledge narrative, rather than histories with more credible provenances.
In 1840 the population of you NZ/AO was 80000 Maori and (approx) 2000 colonists. Yet 500 Maori chiefs signed a treaty that gave at least shared governance of their land in exchange for the protection of law… why?… From who? Surely they weren’t scared of 2000 people?. I am in no way condoning what happened after 1840. I just believe that if you are going to tell history.. tell it all.
It seems you may be digging a deeper hole. Clearly you are not well informed with regard to the ‘political’ complexities of pre-1840 history and seem dismissive of “histories with more credible provenances”. Worse still is your implied assumption that NZers are totally ignorant or misinformed.
Actually aom you just proved the point i am trying to make. The new history curriculum completely misses the (as you put it) ‘political’ complexities of pre-1840 history. Although i do have a bit of a problem with your “histories with more credible provenances” which, of late seems to be whatever the shouteist person says it is.
All i’m asking for is a complete history. If that makes colonists look worse, so be it. I am not too sure why you have a problem with that given your insistence of my ignorance on the subject.
Nah, not really, as shepherds of their people, in acknowledging superior tech that could kill a man/ multiple men at a distance, they were no fools.
They quickly perceived ballistics and the effects it could have and successfully planned against it- as in Rangariri and Gate Pa. They were fully aware of the French and the Americans and the Spaniards and what they did…to the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
Some were with the benefits of the British legal system and trade benefits like the Te Arawa, some were not, like the Waikato’s, who equally were successful traders to Australia, America, England and the fledgling colony of Auckland. They just didn’t see the point in ‘some treaty’ that hamstrung their autonomy at that time.
Hence the Kingite movement.
They were much like the Scottish Highlanders before the Highland Clearances.
Fact was, many smaller tribes did well under the protection of the ‘British’. But only as far as they were eventually prepared to sell off ever increasing lands in exchange for their ( British speculators ) favour… yet even then, those elders were thinking of their mokopuna and their futures in the increasingly apparent European majority in the world of ‘Aotearoa’.
In short, they were overrun, in both arms, men of war and industrialization.
But the twisted webs we weave has all come back to bite us in the bum.
All of us.
Its time to live as one.
Thank you for your detailed and reasoned reply. I will however point out that all of the examples you use are post 1850 or over 10 years after the treaty was signed. I am just asking for a decent pre-treaty history to put the treaty into context.
I’m not sure why everyone has a problem with that.
All I know is this:
Pack Of Wolves Hunt a Bison | Frozen Planet | BBC Earth
https://youtu.be/8wl8ZxAaB2E?t=21
And this , my simple mind does not take into consideration much more….I am like my Salvation Army mother at 94 years of age…Sister Sister Janet Mead ~ The Lord’s Prayer ~ 1973
https://youtu.be/DZF9rsgKZHw?t=5
It is all I can give you… we are the family of man and woman kind.
Let us give praise to God above and worship Him, the God of goodness and Love.
Detailed and reasoned to incoherent gibberish.. just add beer.
The information is out there.. It’s not actually anyone elses job to educate you if you haven’t bothered to do all the research before putting forward your “conclusion”.. Try Ranginui Walkers book “Ka Whauwhai Tonu Matou” (struggle without end) if you wish to engage in a knowledgeable way… It will take you back to the start of Polynesian migration to Aotearoa, and forward all the way to the turn of this century.. That figure of “500 chiefs” is actually a pile of shit.. The chiefs who signed were a minority of the total number. By far the majority didn’t want a bar of “British civilisation”, as all it meant for them was poverty and disease..
I’m sorry Stefan maybe i should have been clearer . i am talking about the new school history they are going to teach which starts at the treaty and misses what came before. If you start at “Treaty” it implies that it is a document that comes after hostilities between two Waring parties. You know as well as I do that the treaty wasn’t about stopping whites killing Maori.
NO ONES GOT A problem with that as it didn’t exist until your particular nominated time. Please select a timeframe in future.
I’m sorry WK I thought my original post made it pretty clear that i was talking about pre-treaty history to put the treaty into context. i am very sorry if that wasn’t clear enough.
Ka rawe Hone!
Kia ora John
I am largely in agreement with the 12 points above. However I have to dispute your third point, that is “most Māori want to assert their rights to “tino rangatiratanga” (self-determination) which was specifically promised to them under the Treaty of Waitangi. Discussion about democracy within iwi and hapu is an issue for Māori themselves where tribal leadership and democratic decision making are being intensely and hotly debated, just as these issues are debated within Pākehā society and across the country as a whole.”
“Rangatiratanga” in Article 1 of Te Tiriti is normally and correctly translated as the “a system of sovereign rule” which in the English version is gifted to Queen Victoria but which in the Maori language version is reserved to the people of Aotearoa. So the fundamental question raised by the conflicting contents of Article 1 in the English and Maori versions of the Treaty is whether Aotearoa should be a colonialist state under the sovereignty of the British monarch, or an independent nation under the system of governance known as rangatiratanga.
If we follow the latter course, then discerning the principles of rangatiratanga becomes a matter of great interest to all of our people, Maori and Pakeha alike. So while discussion about democracy within iwi and hapu is for the members of those iwi and hapu themselves (more or less what you were saying), everyone without exception must have a voice in discussion about rangatiratanga within the nation. That, as it happens, is one of the fundamental principles of rangatiratanga.
We should be ready to move on to that discussion rather than avoid it as you seem to be proposing.
Totally agree Geoff .
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer from Māori Party has titled Pākehā that broadly support Māori goals as “Ngati Tiriti”.
People that acknowledge Te Tiriti O Waitangi, support Māori Wards in local Govt., have no problem with Te Reo being taught and spoken etc.
Debbie can call Pakeha “Ngati Tiriti” or “tangata tiriti” and I have no doubt that she does so with the best of intentions, but many Pakeha for very good reasons choose not to be identified with the British Crown or the Treaty of Waitangi. They will answer to Ngati Pakeha, or tangata motu or anything that does not associate them with the British Crown’s history of deceit, betrayal, exploitation, invasion and dispossession of the people of Aotearoa. They welcome the teaching and use of te reo, the teaching of our true history as a people, the preservation and restoration of rangatiratanga, kotahitanga and mana motuhake.
Pakeha as such actually had no part in the Treaty. They themselves were not signatories, although the chiefs under whose protection they resided may have been. You could therefore argue that the chiefs signed on behalf of Pakeha (which makes more sense than the claim that Queen Victoria represented Pakeha resident in Aotearoa) but that would not make Pakeha “Ngati Tiriti”. It would simply acknowledge that the communal relationship between Maori and Pakeha preceded the signing of Te Tiriti and that therefore the status of Pakeha in Aotearoa does not depend on or arise out of Te Tiriti.
I don’t get this, how can you know be identified with the British crown. I am of British stock, I was born here, my mother was born here. How can I ignore the British connection. I don’t care how Maori identify me, my forbears – British – raped and pillaged this land and stole it ultimately from tangata whenua – Maori. Just as they did in many many other places around the world.
Great response. It should be incorporated into the curriculum.
I don’t agree with either Geoff about rangatiratanga that is nothing to do with sovereignty it is all about the right to decide what you can do with land owned by iwi or Hapu.
Pakeha would call it private property rights.
SOB wrote: “I don’t agree with either Geoff about rangatiratanga that is nothing to do with sovereignty it is all about the right to decide what you can do with land owned by iwi or Hapu.”
Well, there is a claim out there, coming from people like Judith Collins and the Hobson’s pledge brigade, that rangatiratanga is just about property rights. They can only say that if they ignore the way in which the word was used in te reo throughout the early nineteenth century prior to the signing of Te Tiriti, when it was specifically and explicitly used to translate the concept of sovereignty. People who say that rangatiratanga is not about sovereignty just want to be able to assert that claim without any scholarship to back it up. In effect, they want to be able to say that black is white and white is black in order to defend and advance their particular political agenda. That is the way colonialism has always worked – by wilful ignorance, a blatant disregard for the truth and shameless dishonesty.
Wonderful response there, John.
…’Despite what you seem to think, Māori have received only a piddling amount from successive governments. For example the TOTAL payouts to iwi through the Waitangi Tribunal process since the very beginning is a modest $2.2 billion – around 3% of the actual value lost to Māori through theft of their land and destruction of their economy brought about by racism and colonisation’…
—————
I haven’t got a drop of Maori blood in me, though do have part Maori relatives. I felt lonely down the South Island on the construction sites back in the 90’s as there was not the Maori presence. I felt like a foreigner in a foreign land. I have also had the same convo just today and mentioned the same to my Mother ( 94 years young ) as your above statement. She’s a soft touch and loves everybody so she doesn’t really count… adores children and that’s that. She’s colorblind 🙂 She absolutely don’t give a shit about race or religion,- though she is a Christian ! She just sees babies and kids! That’s all.
She would have been a brilliant nurse if she wasn’t brought up mid Great Depression and had to be a breadwinner at 14 years of age… as well. Such wasted human potential.
The comment I made was on one of Mr Bradburys blogs…spent some time with a family I love down Waikato, but though I am Norse /Scots, they are Scots descendants and are quite right wing. I was outgunned but in time, will seek to soften attitudes. Seems to be a rural thing often, as their lands are ( in their perspectives) perceived to be more under threat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If all the Maori tribes were hankering for revolution , it would have happened. Fact is, peaceful cooperation and a fair shake is all they – and all people, – want. Maori have involved themselves with distinction ie: Maori battalions… what more could they have done to express the love of their homelands?… to fight and die on foreign soil in the white mans wars…when they didn’t have to.
And regards that Waikato war?- that was nothing more than foreign bankers, speculators wanting Victoria’s military to open up the rich pastural lands of the Waikato for their profit. It was a disgusting war in which Gov Grey plotted to create a spark in which to ignite the powder keg. They found it in making the Great South Road in crossing the MANGATAWHIRI RIVER.
That was the traditional demarcation zone and buffer between Nga Puhi and Waikato tribes. In-between , were the Ngati Whatua. When the UK/ colonialists came, that boundary was the same. Grey knew this, and the rest is history.
General Cameron, ( a Scots Highlander and well educated militarily ) resigned after the Waikato invasion, Gate Pa,… and when asked to fight the wars in the Taranki, and said in effect ,” I am tired of this , from now on call on your NZ militia to fight these land grab wars, I am resigning”. He was a man of honor, who resigned, went back to England, and extricated himself from all this dishonesty and bloodshed.
Iron Maiden – Stranger In A Strange Land
https://youtu.be/UJsl-bB7lmk?t=4
In honor of all people,… we are all one family.
No one should really be a stranger.
Wild Katipo wrote:
“Maori have involved themselves with distinction ie: Maori battalions… what more could they have done to express the love of their homelands?… to fight and die on foreign soil in the white mans wars…when they didn’t have to.”
Well, well, well. Maori do not need to fight in the “white man’s wars” – actually the wars of the British Crown – in order to show their patriotism or their courage. Their patriotism was on full display at Ruapekapeka, Pukehinahina and Orakau. In a later generation, Apirana Ngata believed that fighting for the Crown was the price Maori must pay to obtain the rights of citizens in New Zealand. Te Puea realized more correctly that Maori could be emancipated only be struggling against the power of the British Crown in New Zealand and not by fighting for the Crown on foreign shores against people with whom we had no argument. That remains true to this day.
“Gov Grey plotted to create a spark in which to ignite the powder keg. They found it in making the Great South Road in crossing the MANGATAWHIRI RIVER”
Not exactly true. Grey’s first provocation was to order Maori in the South Auckland area to swear allegiance to Queen Victoria or be driven off their lands. They refused and they were driven off. This is how the Crown came to obtain the land at Ihumaatao. Crossing the Mangatawhiri was the Crown’s second provocation. This sequence of events is important because it shows that the Crown’s first war aim was to obtain the political submission of Maori to the Crown. The secondary object was to seize their land. The Crown still demands political submission from Maori. All Maori (and Pakeha) Members of Parliament are required to swear allegiance to Victoria’s great granddaughter Elizabeth, in other words to submit where their tipuna had refused to submit at Ihumaatao. The Crown has not changed its ways in one hundred and sixty years.
”…Well, well, well. Maori do not need to fight in the “white man’s wars” – actually the wars of the British Crown – in order to show their patriotism or their courage”…
————–
Yeah its always arseholes who want to jump on anyone who brings truth to the table. Fuck you and fuck your twisted logic. You want a problem,… you just gone the right way in getting one.
Im done.
Go read Bellich.
Are you better than him?
Doubt it.
Anyhow’s, there’s good stuff in what you posted, but it smacks of revisionism…my annoyance was more towards that than anything else, as people are more motivated towards personal goals than altruistic ones in the heat of battle IE: SURVIVAL.
Ask any returned veteran and they will tell you the same.
Kia ora ano John
I could have been more explicit when I wrote that “Discussion about democracy within iwi and hapu is an issue for Māori themselves” (your wording) is “more or less” saying that “democracy within iwi and hapu is for the members of those iwi and hapu themselves”.
Your opinion and mine both matter, but in the final event it is the tikanga that decides, and the tikanga is clear. It is not “Maori” that have rights in a hapu, but each and every member of the hapu that has, and no one else. Ethnicity is not the determinant.
This tikanga virtually preempts any further discussion on the matter of democracy because the tikanga itself is profoundly democratic in the sense of kaituku mana ki te iwi. Even if a hapu or iwi is not actually run on lines of kaituku mana ki te iwi and rangatiratanga is not actually practised, the tikanga remains. A system is not defined by the breaches and departures from tikanga, but by the tikanga itself.
Rangatiratanga differs from the conventional European concept of democracy (“ta te nuinga i whakatau”) because it is built on consensus rather than on the rule of a majority and because it respects the autonomy of the individual and the collective when consensus cannot be achieved. An individual is free to withdraw from the hapu and a hapu may withdraw from the iwi to stand alone with mana motuhake either in partnership with or in separation from the “parent” body. This is only perceived as a problem by alien political structures such as the British Crown which do not understand or sympathize with the tikanga of rangatiratanga, as occasionally happens in “Treaty negotiations”.
So rangatiratanga is not just democratic. It is manifestly morally superior to the monarchical/majoritarian system which supporters of the illegitimate colonialist regime claim to be a “democracy”.
The treaty is only a big deal for those who believe that it materially changed the state of the nation, that is, for those who uphold the English language version of the Treaty. For those tangata motu who adhere to the Maori language version, the story is that certain chiefs decided that Victoria should be appointed to govern Aotearoa under the sovereignty of their iwi . Because there is no European-style presumption of inheritance in rangatiratanga, that was an arrangement that could only last for Victoria’s lifetime or until such time that the iwi withdrew their authority from her. As it happens many iwi had withdrawn their authority by 1845, others followed from 1860 onwards, and by 1900 the Treaty was a nullity for nga tangata motu katoa.
..’So rangatiratanga is not just democratic. It is manifestly morally superior to the monarchical/majoritarian system which supporters of the illegitimate colonialist regime claim to be a “democracy”…
—————
Exactly. Why is it so hard to grasp? The Native Americans and First Nations peoples operate under almost the same identical principles. Respecting both the individual and the Community. They are a great example of how that system works. Why cannot we be the same?
Why do we have to pit one against the other, why cannot we see we are brothers and sisters? Why do we have to fight and take ‘sides’?… who is doing this to us?
Very interesting. So as I suspected, this is not actually a constitutional issue despite the government asserting that it is. It should stop ‘leading from behind’ and front up to the issues with NZers via discussion and consensus. Where are the conversations on who we are as New Zealanders in 2021, where we are going and how we move forward in recognition of all of this? There has been exactly none.
The cries of racism and white privilege when a question is raised dont help, just inflame things when essentially both Maori and ‘other’ just want a country that is fair and reasonable and allows for individuals and groups to do things their way whilst having respect for each other. We are caught up in some kind of ideological war rather than addressing the matter as it is to the benefit of all NZ and the respect of all people.
Very interesting. So as I suspected, this is not actually a constitutional issue despite the government asserting that it is. It should stop ‘leading from behind’ and front up to the issues with NZers via discussion and consensus. Where are the conversations on who we are as New Zealanders in 2021, where we are going and how we move forward in recognition of all of this? There has been exactly none.
The cries of racism and white privilege when a question is raised dont help, just inflame things when essentially both Maori and ‘other’ just want a country that is fair and reasonable and allows for individuals and groups to do things their way whilst having respect for each other. We are caught up in some kind of ideological war rather than addressing the matter as it is to the benefit of all NZ and the respect of all people.
…’The cries of racism and white privilege when a question is raised dont help, just inflame things when essentially both Maori and ‘other’ just want a country that is fair and reasonable and allows for individuals and groups to do things their way whilst having respect for each other. We are caught up in some kind of ideological war rather than addressing the matter as it is to the benefit of all NZ and the respect of all people’…
————–
Your heart is good. You are the sort of peoples we need to be listening to.
Well answered. 🙂
Great History lessons in the comment section
But History is in the past we can learn about it but we cant change it there is right and wrong on both sides
From the past and now i feel some are wanting a division in our kiwi culture
My personal opinion is that we are all New Zealanders none of this us and them crap
I belive the treaty was sorted afew years ago with huge financial benefits to the different iwis tribes groups yet there is still kiwi families suffering division is wrong we should stand together as one and conquer all this is my opinion from a 57 year old man born and bred in Tokoroa
Steve, I believe your words represent the opinion of most New Zealanders.
Who is Pete?
Fabulous Steve
Comments are closed.