Posted: 10:58am Fri 09 May, 2014

Ill-informed rant shows battle bias

Because of the obvious bias exhibited by R Paterson (‘Overkill on Gate Pa battle?', The Weekend Sun, May 2) regarding the battle at Gate Pa/Pukehinahina, I feel I must respond to what amounts to an ill-informed rant.

Firstly, describing the Maori forces as ‘insurgents' is incorrect. People fighting to retain their land are more properly described as ‘defenders', surely?

This assertion is followed by spurious examples, such as ‘Maori Kingite Forces' who ‘scarpered overnight'.

Such language is designed to portray the defenders as less than heroic, which is not how those Maori warriors behaved.

The New Zealand historian, James Belich in his well documented book ‘The New Zealand Wars' describes the disbelief of the British troops (1700 men) when they were routed within 10 minutes by a few hundred Maori warriors.

Yes, the Maori forces did indeed later leave under the cover of darkness, much to the dismay of General Cameron. The shock of the British defeat severely undermined their prestige and thus arose the need to palliate it, the version R Paterson clearly believes.

R Paterson then underlines what he/she maintains is ‘overkill' in the reporting of the 150th anniversary of the battle.

Given R Paterson's take on the battle, this ‘overkill', as he describes it, is surely justified. The writer concludes with a mention of what he/she deems as a more appropriate day for ‘revelry', Kiwi National Day.

I can only suppose this is their preferred name for Waitangi Day.

By this final ignominious insult, the writer reveals they are truly racist. I'm new to Tauranga, from Wellington and I'd hate to think R Paterson's views are given any credence.

Tauranga City Council support for the Pukehinahina commemorations suggests they are part of an inconsequential minority.

S Quaddel, Maungatapu.

132 comments

Congratulations,

Posted on 10-05-2014 09:04 | By robin bell

You sum up Paterson very well.He/she is not typical of Tauranga,but sadly there is a small vocal minority,determined to "raise" our status to the level their prejudice.The silent majority are much more interesting.Welcome to Tauranga,I hope you are happy here. Robin Bell.

Time to learn some truth

Posted on 10-05-2014 19:12 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

S Quaddel you really need to learn some genuine history. R. Patterson has summed up well the farcical nonsense of the Gate Pa 'commemorations' - more accurately described as 'historical nonsense'. Your PC nonsense may go down well where you came from but in Tauranga, thankfully there are only a small number of mischievous or misguided fools like yourself and Mr. Bell who follow and believe the kind of rewritten history bandied about today. The silent majority know well the truth of our past and how it has and is being manipulated for greed and privilege. Given the brutal and savage nature of Maori at the time and the threats made by chief Puhirake unless the British engaged him, conflict was inevitable. The outcome was colonial forces took control of the site and surrounding areas - highlighting the lie in your letter about a Maori victory.

Spurious Examples!!!,

Posted on 10-05-2014 21:12 | By crazyhorse

The first thing that you need to realise is that Belich is a social historian, not a military historian and is widely known for his radical anti-colonial views. This book is a vehicle for promoting his revisionist agenda. Much of the content has already been shot down by a variety of military historians, including current Senior Lecturer of War Studies at Sandhurst, Christopher Pugsley. Belich reels off a series of ludicrous claims including: - The Maori 'invented' trench warfare in the mid-19th century (trenches had already been used in European conflicts, with the Lines of Torre Vedras being case in point)W - Gate Pa took heavier shellfire per square inch than any point of the Somme in WW1 ( Gate Pa had an 8-hour bombardment with 16 field pieces and one large-calibre naval gun, compared to 950 large-calibre modern artillery pieces deluging Bazentin Ridge with 650lb shells per meter.

The book is a heavily distorted

Posted on 10-05-2014 21:23 | By crazyhorse

Classic example is Chapter 5, where Belich devotes 8 pages to the battle of Puketakuuere (which is fair enough), while the crushing Maori defeat at Redoubt No.3 (one of the heaviest by either side in the whole campaign) is covered in a single sentence with no mention of casualties. The later abortive Maori attack on Sentry Hill is also covered in a single sentence, with no reference to the 30+ Maori killed in the action. An interesting aside is that the Maori at Sentry Hill believed their 'Hau Hau' incantations and hand gestures would magically protect them from bullets as they casually sauntered towards the redoubt in open order. Predictably, Belich doesn't touch this with a bargepole. Then there's the more serious matter of Belich being caught making authoritive reference to fabricated quotes. When confronted ,he said the 'quotes' he invented reflected the general views at the time.bull####

Land Wars

Posted on 11-05-2014 21:22 | By Te Ponui

tells it all. Land = want it = greed. Who wouldn't defend their lands and livelihood as much as they can?. So why does the silly donkey and Mrs Paterson believe Maori are at fault?

Crazyhorse, James Belich is still respected

Posted on 12-05-2014 07:45 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse quotes criticism of James Belich as though some fault equals heavy distortion. James Belich is still widely respected because he supports his views with very valid arguments. He simply points out that the usual story of the Land Wars was biased. S.Quadell is equally justified in calling R.Paterson's views an ill-informed rant.

Crazyhorse, James Belich is still respected

Posted on 12-05-2014 07:45 | By Peter Dey

WHAT EVER APOLOGIST

Posted on 12-05-2014 13:43 | By crazyhorse

Twenty years after its publication, this remains one of the most controversial interpretations of an aspect of New Zealand history. The book opens with an inequivocal statement of intent: "This is a revisionist history of the New Zealand Wars." Although it was initially hailed as a brilliant new interpretation, however, large sections have since been discredited in detail. As examples, Belich claims (incorrectly) that Maori invented modern trench warfare; that the Ngapuhi chiefs Hone Heke and Kawiti 'won' the Northern War of 1845-6; that the British never understood, and therefore could not counter, Maori strategy; that the British defeat at Gate Pa in 1864 was the result of a Maori 'ambush'....the list goes on. What is interesting is that no military historian - Maori or non-Maori - has ever endorsed his interpretation.he made things up this has been proven, that suites the cause. The "gravy train".

Great analogy Te ponui

Posted on 12-05-2014 15:35 | By robin bell

but if I may I'd like to add a little.Land wars =we want it = greed =invasion = provocation = retaliation = confiscation = satisfaction,now we have your land.At last we can add the last component," Compensation" for our greed.The answer to your question is,the donkey and his mates have always blamed Maori, for anything and everything.It is their way to elevate themselves.Robin Bell.

Te ponui

Posted on 12-05-2014 17:17 | By crazyhorse

Here's a list of "some" of what you get now Te ponui, you make your own list of what else you want, I'm sure people would be real interested in knowing . Maori only prisoner programmes Maori only positions in government agencies Maori only consultation rights under the RMA Maori only co-management of parks, rivers, lakes and coastline Maori only seats on local councils Maori only local government statutory boards Maori only local government liaison committees Maori only seats in parliament Maori only welfare (Whanau Ora) Maori only health prioritisation and initiatives separate maori tax rates (17.5% vs 30% for everyone else) separate maori television station separate maori radio stations separate maori ministry (Te Puni Kokiri) separate maori political party (Maori Party)

Te Ponui,

Posted on 13-05-2014 09:19 | By robin bell

you just have to "love" our crazy donkey,don't we?He talks about what you "get" like its his to "give" typical of the arrogance,he and his few friends represent.Lets ask him what Maori Only! co-management means.You wouldn't think two little letters like co! would be so hard to understand,even for a donkey.On a more serious note,the sad fact is,Te Ponui,that the people so critical of all things Maori,are doing it in a futile attempt,to create unrest among those they need to suport their political need to dominate.Be "aware". Robin Bell.

crazyhorse, we are two people

Posted on 13-05-2014 17:27 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse lists a number of things that Maori get as though these things are privileges. They are mostly reasonable attempts to compensate Maori for disadvantage. They are not privileges because they do not make Maori better off than Pakeha. We are two people, Maori and Pakeha. Crazyhorse is complaining about help for people who are worse off than him. As S.Quadell points out, people here who go on and on with anti-Maori rants are out of touch with the majority of the population in other places.

Te ponui

Posted on 14-05-2014 08:26 | By crazyhorse

Where's your list Te ponui, we all need to see what else part maori need to settle "grievances" and let the rest of us move on, or, perhaps you might be talking contemporary claims, the list please Te ponui.

Crazyhorse, we have moved on

Posted on 14-05-2014 13:48 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse wants a list from Maori so he can move on. He does not seem to realise, as S.Quadell points out, that he is part of an inconsequential minority living here who have not moved on. They continue their anti-Maori rant not realising that the rest of New Zealand has moved on and is working towards greater racial harmony. What happened to the 1law4all political party and colour blind New Zealand who were going to contest the coming elections? They realised they were an inconsequential minority. Crazyhorse should realise this too. S.Quadell from Wellington is telling him.

we have moved on

Posted on 15-05-2014 19:52 | By crazyhorse

We certainly have, 80% of Rotorua are against unelected seats on council, so many other councils around NZ now standing up for what people want in a democratic country, "80%" and "people like me are, Quote from Dey,inconsequential minority, that's how 80% of nz is viewed by the "treatyists"

Race based representation

Posted on 16-05-2014 08:46 | By crazyhorse

Around the country corporate iwi are moving on local government to protect their assets an progress their power sharing 50:50 co-governance goal. Last month it was New Plymouth, where a plan to appoint six iwi representatives with full voting rights was defeated by a council vote. This month, it is Rotorua, where the Mayor has been planning to establish a new iwi board with voting rights - without the knowledge of the community. Under the Mayor's proposal a separate new board of 8 iwi representatives with full voting rights would be established, with its own secretariat, the right to form sub-committees, and the power to require the council to explain - in writing - any failure to accept their advice. Two iwi would be appointed to each council standing committee, except for the one dealing with resource management issues, equal number of iwi representatives would be appointed councillors.

Crazyhorse, polls are misleading you

Posted on 16-05-2014 10:24 | By Peter Dey

Councils and councillors have made provision for Maori representation because they do not want to ignore Maori concerns. They have to make decisions and they do not want to make racist decisions. People polled will say that they do not want Maori representation, but, like Don Brash, when it comes to making a racist decision they change their minds. Crazyhorse, the 80% polls that you quote are misleading because these people will not publicly back up what they have said confidentially. What has happened to the 1law4all political campaign?

Crazy Steed

Posted on 16-05-2014 11:01 | By YOGI BEAR

Rotorua, yes 80%+ and likely understated compared to NZ at large. what you have is a Majority of Maori and partners wanting this non democratic unelected people in, yet that is not what we all took on in 1840 now is it.

Racist decision Dey!

Posted on 16-05-2014 16:11 | By crazyhorse

Quote from Dey, {the 80% polls that you quote are misleading because these people will not publicly back up what they have said confidentially.} People comming out of the woodwork to talk about this openly now, read the daily post, they cant stop people talking about it, if your so sure of yourselves how about a binding referendum on it, before your treaty troughing pet lawyer Geoffrey Palmer abolishes them. Sir Geoffrey sees in referenda, a powerful voice of the people which governments and politicians do not like, for this is the people talking, not the disingenuous politician who, though purportedly in office to express the will of the people, often believes that he or she is there because he or she personally deserves to be there”.he's calling for abolition of citizens' referenda, in his article Sir Geoffrey recommends radical changes entreching a bill of rights in a written constitutio

one more time for the dummys

Posted on 16-05-2014 16:23 | By crazyhorse

Council and councilors are not there to slide around behind rate payers backs coming up with racist unwanted boards with unelected councilors on them, Chadwick is a trojan horse in Rotorua council, but she has been caught out. If maori want to be on council they should stand at election time, you forget this poll in Rotorua is damaging as 1/3 of the residence are "maori" or are you going to say they won't vote, what are you saying Dey?.

Forever and a Dey.

Posted on 16-05-2014 17:38 | By robin bell

Peter is yet again correct.Some people, including crazy-horse and his mate mr bear,think Democracy is an inflexible set of rules. Fact is its not.It is what each Nation needs in order to function peacefully. New Zealand is a Nation of two founding partners.Fact. Denying the minority partner,the right to represent their interests,is not Democracy in any shape or form. Democracy as we now know it did not exist in 1840. What crazy-horse,mr bear etc.advocate is not Democracy,but a power play of the extreme right. It would be disastrous for this nation. Robin Bell.

CONTEMPORARY CLAIMS NOW????

Posted on 16-05-2014 20:40 | By crazyhorse

As in we want to run local gov't this year and then Honi for prime minister next year, our lap dogs in gov't will see we get it,> The message put forward by iwi and "their" treaty troughing lawyers now runs like this. Treaty claims will never end. For one reason or another past settlements of claims weren't good enough. It might just be because we want more now, and we're breaking our word, but that doesn't matter because we've got the Treaty, and it says we can do anything. If we want more and more then we're entitled to have it and we're going to have it, and there's going to be trouble if we don't. Nothing else is ‘justice'. And even if at some future time we do decide we won't make another claim, that's not the end of the story and "never" will be>

BELL

Posted on 16-05-2014 21:17 | By crazyhorse

IT'S NOT 1840 NOW, WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU AND YOUR VERY PART MAORI FRIENDS UNDERSTAND.

MR BEAR

Posted on 16-05-2014 22:29 | By crazyhorse

What dey bell and mayor chadwick are hiding is this unwanted board with unelected people on it is to "!CONTROL" Rotorua council NOT CONTRIBUTE, Auckland-based TREATY TROUGHING lawyer tama hovell from the law firm atkins holms majurey, which has undertaken the council's "cultural engagement audit "CULTURAL AUDIT??????????ever in an effort to improve relations with iwi.{relations}

Does Rotorua need separate Maori representation?

Posted on 16-05-2014 23:17 | By Peter Dey

Separate Maori representation makes sense if the percentage of Maori is low. If Rotorua has one third Maori population then their debate is probably not racist at all, and they do not need separate Maori representation.

You forgot,

Posted on 17-05-2014 09:35 | By robin bell

the "NOT" crazy.Your ill tempered outbursts,do not enhance your position.The point you try to avoid is that Democracy is ever changing.For Maori it has changed since the 1960s.For you it has changed also,you no longer have total power.Is that why you are so angry crazy? Robin Bell.

Crazyhorse, we still have a Treaty

Posted on 17-05-2014 09:38 | By Peter Dey

It's not 1840 but we still have the Treaty of Waitangi, which both National and Labour Governments believe should be honoured. So why does crazyhorse keep ranting on about Maori privilege, when all we are doing is trying to respect Maori concerns?

BASED ON RACE

Posted on 17-05-2014 10:50 | By crazyhorse

The ""Mayor's plan"" to pass control of the important resource management process from the democratically elected council to iwi - through a committee made up of equal numbers of iwi and councillors. While the councillors would clearly be accountable to ratepayers - to act in the best interests of the wider community - the appointed iwi representatives would have no accountability to anyone but themselves. and we all know what happens then!!. Furthermore, by setting up such a committee with 50 percent of the membership based on race, the important principle of proportionality has been ignored. This breaches section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - freedom from discrimination based on race. The Attorney General determined that the bill was discriminatory and in breach of the Bill of Rights,The Bill has a discriminatory impact on non-Maori by diluting their democratic participation in local authority elections.

crazyhorse, there is no principle of proportionality

Posted on 17-05-2014 12:47 | By Peter Dey

Maori have spent years having to put up with Pakeha majority rule. Pakeha majority rule means that Pakeha decide what they want in Government and Maori just have to put up with it because they don't have the voting numbers to make any difference. this has resulted in long injustice to Maori. Crazyhorse is trying to make Pskeha majority rule sound fair by calling it the principle of proportionality but it is still Pakeha majority rule. It is still unfair to Maori, and Crazyhorse probably thinks it is ok because he is not Maori.

.

Posted on 17-05-2014 13:59 | By crazyhorse

Breaches section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. this law was brought in to protect all New Zealanders.

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?

Posted on 17-05-2014 14:07 | By crazyhorse

In a representative democracy, it is important to maintain approximately the same level of representation for everyone. The proposed formula would make the number of council members for Maori wards or constituencies disproportionately higher than the number of council members for general wards or constituencies in comparison to their respective populations. The Bill has a discriminatory impact on non-Maori by diluting their democratic participation in local authority elections. Whichever way you look at it, race-based representation is an anathema to representative democracy. The Maori Party claims race-based rights through a Treaty ‘partnership', but as Judge Anthony Willy, law lecturer David Round, and others have clearly shown, Treaty partnership rights do not exist in law.[3] They are a fallacy - a political construct invented to persuade politicians and the population at large, that the Treaty confers special sovereign rights that justify iwi being given elevated position over "all others".

Not so 'Crazy'

Posted on 17-05-2014 15:16 | By Mary Faith

Thank you 'Crazyhorse' for putting so succinctly what 95% of non-Maori feel regarding the race inequities occurring in NZ! :)

crazyhorse, now you are really ranting

Posted on 17-05-2014 15:59 | By Peter Dey

crazyhorse accuses Maori of wanting elevated status over all others. S.Quaddel simply pointed out in her letter that disparaging comments about Maori who took part in the battle at Pukehinahina were an ill-informed rant not supported by historical records. Crazyhorse has failed to show that S.Quaddel is wrong. He has taken the opportunity to rant on that Maori want elevated status over all others when Maori clearly are making no such claim. All that Maori want is an end to Pakeha domination, something which will bring no harm at all to crazyhorse.

Co-Governance

Posted on 17-05-2014 16:44 | By crazyhorse

Bell, Dey and other treaty troughers and apologists continually refer to Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, they say it promised co-governance to Maori. Not even the Waitangi Tribunal, with its" redefined treaty", supports the view that some local government officials are pushing around the country -- that Article 2 of the treaty promises co-governance. who stands to benefit from extra seats as of right with voting powers and funding for people appointed by local tribal corporations. This extra "right" puts those appointees ahead of everyone, including most Maori. This extra "right" subverts our system of governance that operates on the principle of one-person-one-vote for everyone aged 18 and over, including all Maori, this is a push by the iwi elite for more power and a larger helping of "gravy" at the expense of "you know who" yep campers the other 85 to 95% OF NON MAORI.

Sad comments

Posted on 17-05-2014 18:09 | By Buddy Mikaere

The contents of this exchange have been drawn to my attention by others. The first thing I would like to say is that people unwilling to put their name to their comments deserve to be ignored. If you are too gutless to stand by your comments then they don't deserve consideration. The attempts to portray the commemorations as reflecting a skewed view of our history is equally ridiculous. As those Tauranga Maori and Pakeha people who attended the commemoration events will attest the intention to honour the dead of both sides was surely achieved with grace and dignity. However the best outcome was the participation by many thousands of school children in the commemoration and the dissemination of knowledge that will ensure the events of Gate Pa 1864 will be remembered in a way that reflects with heartfelt respect on our forbears.

Buddy Mikaere

Posted on 17-05-2014 18:58 | By Jeromy Murkin

People here are not talking about the events at Gate of Gate Pa 1864, they have turned it around to local government and what is going on in rotorua and other councils around the country, as for people not usng there real names, maybe they work in government places and do not want to lose there jobs, school teachers work at a council, tell us all what do you have to say about whats going on in rotorua Buddy, cause you are looking at the same here, speak up.

JUST THE MAN

Posted on 17-05-2014 19:22 | By crazyhorse

We need, I live in oz but my kids all work in the health system and I want to have my say so crazyhorse is how I stop them being effected ,and don't say that doesn't happen cause that would be a lie,indoctrinated with the treaty through out their training and now in the job, so buddy whats your "take"on Gov't setting up maori boards with unelected maori on them. who exactly do the "mana whenua" representatives actually work for? How does one join this group and obtain power? By what process do they get their positions? Apart from them representing just one population segment, have they been checked for any other conflicts of interest? Who pays their costs? How is their performance evaluated and by whom? What confidence can ratepayers have that the interests of all New Zealanders in the region will be protected?explain this co governance.

YOUR RANTING DEY

Posted on 17-05-2014 20:01 | By crazyhorse

QUOTE FROM DEY{All that Maori want is an end to Pakeha domination,}. Maori are not dominated,this whole industry is fueled by about 100 people a lot of them euro New Zealanders it's an "INDUSTRY" big business, you would have a valid argument if the money was going where it should,but, lets not talk "borrowing" from "KOHANGO REO, UNLESS YOU WANT TO,

Chicken Licken

Posted on 17-05-2014 20:43 | By Buddy Mikaere

There is never any excuse for hiding behind a pseudonym in a public forum - regardless of your employment. In fact I would be worried if persons working in a public service role felt that their employment was at risk through exercising the right of all citizens to state their point of view without fear. If you thought your views might be contrary to your employer or the majority then maybe you're in the wrong job. Own your comments

MEAL TICKET

Posted on 18-05-2014 20:08 | By crazyhorse

Quote from buddy. However the best outcome was the participation by many thousands of school children in the commemoration. "OUTCOME" these are the kids being taught "revisionist as it suits history" , but the out come is our meal ticket is guaranteed through these kids and the {stories we tell them}.

crazyhorse, revisionist history is more accurate

Posted on 19-05-2014 08:57 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse uses the term revisionist history as though new historical knowledge is somehow incorrect. Historians are all the time finding new material that updates what we know. New knowledge makes what we know more accurate not incorrect.

NO CHOICE, PSEUDONYM

Posted on 19-05-2014 16:44 | By crazyhorse

Maybe the people writing in have reasons to use a "pseudonym", as in work in the public service, health, education, in local council, now that the "TOW" is used to "indoctrinate" staff they must be careful, anyone can see how these people would be frustrated, unable to speak out at work or in public, Imagine what would happen if after indoctrination that's "brain washing with "PC" and "BS" someone writes into "SunLive", maybe a teacher who is forced to teach revisionist untrue history, someone in the health system coming up for their review, a nurse training at Waiariki institute of technology. These people could lose their jobs, maybe demoted, and the poor trainee nurse, "they would talk about her in the "maori" only study room". Would she pass her course, even with good marks, what do you reckon campers, she was not "{politically corrected}" enough!!".

Revisionist history

Posted on 19-05-2014 20:24 | By YOGI BEAR

yes it is I agree, the apparent revisions noted constantly have only recently been created some 100-200 years after the date of unrelated events. That is what the issue is.

Crazyhorse, Maori were dominated by Pakeha

Posted on 19-05-2014 22:20 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse keeps quoting isolated wrongdoing, like borrowing from Kohanga Reo, as though this proves that all Maori business is corrupt. Isolated incidents prove nothing. Maori have been dominated by Pakeha decisions. We used to exclude Maori from rugby tours to apartheid South Africa. Maori have now moved a long way to being independent of Pakeha domination, which benefits us all.

YOGI BEAR, early Pakeha writers could be biased

Posted on 19-05-2014 22:32 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR seems to think that history written two hundred years ago was more accurate, because it was written closer to the time of events. But the view of Pakeha writers was easily biased by their Pakeha culture. Historians can now recognise this more easily than those living at the time.

Crazyhorse, we have two major cultures

Posted on 19-05-2014 22:45 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, we are a nation of Maori and Pakeha cultures. It is only fair that Pakeha education and health workers should have a reasonable understanding of Maori culture. It is a sensible way to improve health and education outcomes for Maori. Complaining about isolated abuses of this training is sensationalist nonsense.

According to Crazyhorse

Posted on 20-05-2014 09:30 | By robin bell

New Zealand is now such a terrible place to live,people can no longer express an opinion,for fear of instant dismissal or worse.It may be like that in O.Z.Krazy,but we pride ourselves on an ability to speak our minds. You don't fool anyone,deep down your ashamed of your blatant racism,hence the PSEUDONYMS. Its now time to show us how tough you really are,put up your name.You are clearly an activist/ researcher/historian for the paranoid,far right one N.Z.foundation. I would speculate on your name but I doubt Sunlive would allow it.However it is true that their senior researcher now lives in Australia.Is that a coincidence,or WHAT. Robin Bell.

Gidday Peter #2

Posted on 20-05-2014 14:23 | By YOGI BEAR

You say "Pakeha writers (writing at the time of the event) was easily biased", so applying the same logic it is also fair to say that "Pakeha writers (writing now) are easily biased" that is easy to understand as they will personally benefit from the desired conclusion from it all. So based upon thise "facts" that you have stated/admitted means the latter is clearly tainted by self interest and self benefit, how can any of it be believed.

Crazy Horse

Posted on 20-05-2014 15:15 | By Buddy Mikaere

Kia ora folks - I suggest we ignore what this person has to say until the have the courage to front up with their proper name. Sniping from hiding is about as gutless as you can get. Why is it that most of the "anti-maori" commentators hide behind pseudonyms.

two major cultures

Posted on 20-05-2014 15:45 | By YOGI BEAR

Sorry Peter, NZ is "Multi-cultural" means that there are many different cultures. I would have thought at least one of the other seven cultures that resided in NZ pre-Maori would have rated the same if not of being more significant?

MUTU

Posted on 20-05-2014 16:27 | By crazyhorse

A Maori academic says immigration by whites should be restricted because they pose a threat to race relations due to their "white supremacist" attitudes. The controversial comments come in response to a Department of Labour report, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Star-Times, which found Maori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than Pakeha or any other ethnic group. Margaret Mutu, head of Auckland University's department of Maori studies, agreed with the findings and called on the government to restrict the number of white migrants arriving from countries such as South Africa, England and the United States as they brought attitudes destructive to Maori. How does a racist end up in head of dept in a university, what poison is she spreading, what is the university doing about this.

nelson mendela

Posted on 20-05-2014 16:37 | By crazyhorse

Education is the great engine of personal development. It is through education that the daughter of a peasant can become a doctor, that the son of a mine worker can become the head of the mine, that a child of farm workers can become the president of a great nation. It is what we make out of what we have, not what we are given, that separates one person from another.

Cultures

Posted on 21-05-2014 06:35 | By YOGI BEAR

NZ does not have "two major cultures" it is a multicultural nation that is being divided into two for no useful purpose

Peter - current scribes?

Posted on 21-05-2014 08:43 | By YOGI BEAR

Hard to take seriously your statements there sorry, it is obvious that current "history creating" historians just can not match the level of reliability that "someone who was there" has. A really good example of that is Janet Wilshurst, she is really good at putting together detailed historical accounts for those who pay her to do so.

CORRUPTED

Posted on 21-05-2014 09:09 | By crazyhorse

Worst example of all, Chatham Islands Ngati Mutunga have agreed on who will represent them in treaty negotiations but there is a big question of why any payout would be suitable for the descendants of those who invaded the Chatham Islands in 1835 and murdered hundreds of peaceful Moriori. Taranaki Maori who were living at Port Nicholson uneasily in the presence of the hyper-aggressive Ngati Toa tribe decided to move to the Chatham Islands. The only problem was that the Chatham Islands were already occupied -- by the peaceful Moriori people. November 19, 1835 Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga tribes "hired" a ship and landed in the Chatham's and murdered and ate a large number of the population, the rest were kept as slaves. 179 years later, the descendents the perpetrators of this genocide are lining up for a payout for imagined alleged acts and omissions by settler governmen

Buddy

Posted on 21-05-2014 16:06 | By Jeromy Murkin

tell us all what do you have to say about whats going on in rotorua Buddy, cause you are looking at the same here, speak up, do not worry about people using pseudonyms, explain the setting up of the unelected maori boards, how is it coming along here, also nothing been said about Rena and all the hard ship it caused you, come to an "agreement" yet.

Kia ora folks

Posted on 21-05-2014 19:31 | By crazyhorse

I'm not anti maori buddy, I'm anti bludger!.

YOGI BEAR, Janet Wilmshurst is an excellent example

Posted on 21-05-2014 19:41 | By Peter Dey

Early Pakeha writers told us that there were other races living in New Zealand before Maori arrived. Janet Wilmshurst has shown, with clear scientific evidence, that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand, and there were no settlers here before Maori arrived. Her research was published by The National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the official science adviser to the US Government since President Lincoln set it up about 1860. Janet Wilmshurst and the National Academy of Sciences have more credibility than YOGI BEAR could ever hope to have. Modern writers have to withstand criticism before their writing becomes credible. A writer from 150 years ago could have got his story wrong. Just being there does not make his story automatically correct.

YOGI BEAR, New Zealand has two major cultures

Posted on 21-05-2014 19:48 | By Peter Dey

We have two official spoken languages in New Zealand, English and Maori. We have a Treaty between two cultures, English and Maori, We have passports in two languages, English and Maori. We have two electoral rolls, General and Maori. We have two cultures on our coins, Pakeha and Maori. Certainly we are a multicultural nation, but we have two major cultures. If you think otherwise you are denying reality.

Crazyhorse, Margaret Mutu is not racist

Posted on 21-05-2014 19:55 | By Peter Dey

Margaret Mutu would be racist if she claimed that Maori were a superior race. She claims nothing of the sort. The fact that Pakeha dominated Governments can allow continuing immigration by non-Maori into New Zealand, thus weakening the place of Maori in their own country is another illustration of the fact that Pakeha majority rule is unfair to Maori. Margaret Mutu is simply saying that unlimited immigration of non-Maori is unfair to Maori. She is right.

Crazyhorse, what has Rekohu got to do with Pukehinahina?

Posted on 21-05-2014 21:12 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse reminds us of the murderous attack by Ngati Mutunga against the Moriori of Rekohu in 1835. Does Crazyhorse think that the Ngati Mutunga actions warrant unjustified disparaging comments about Maori in the Pukehinahina battle. It seems that Crazyhorse thinks that if he produces enough examples of historically bad Maori behaviour, that we will conclude that Maori are a permanently bad race of people, and that they do not deserve to ever be treated fairly. That is seriously confused and illogical thinking.

what has Rekohu

Posted on 22-05-2014 08:19 | By crazyhorse

Got to do with Pukehinahina?. It is an example of what really happened, and, still there will be a massive pay out by the NZ tax payer, so lets not pretend that we are always doing the "right thing" BECAUSE THE TREATY TROUGHERS DON'T CARE THEY JUST WANT "more". this was "genocide" a word used by part maori from time to time, but, it was them that practised it, not British.

TOW HISTORY?

Posted on 22-05-2014 08:23 | By crazyhorse

Thanks to corrupt historians the treaty and Maori history doesn't even resemble what really happened, especially the "TOW", every year it gets more and more bizarre, I cant wait to read nz history in about 10 years time, how Maori came to nz on Ngatahu built 876 air craft fashioned from flax and bamboo and powered by "puha", a previous expedition had set up mana and money machines all around both islands so Maori could walk with pride and finances where ever they went, the only mistake they made was putting the fast food outlet on the chatham islands, lucky for Moriori,well for awhile anyway, you may laugh but look what's happened so far.wake up and smell the coffee, by crazyhorse.

Margaret Mutu is not racist

Posted on 22-05-2014 09:28 | By Jeromy Murkin

Every one catching on to what you are dealing with here, why is it only whites can be racist. QUOTE DEY(Margaret Mutu is simply saying that unlimited immigration of non-Maori is unfair to Maori. She is right). NZ lets people in from Papau, Asia, lot's from Taiwan, and the Islands, DNA has proved this, funny thing is these people are probably more Maori that maori!!LOL.Hana Te Hemara, formerly Hana Jackson achieved notoriety in 1988 when she told Auckland University students to "kill a white and become a hero". Titewhai Harawira: threatening to kill;In 1988 Harawira, her daughter Hiniwhare, son Arthur and two others were found guilty of beating a Carrington Hospital patient. At the time Harawira was head of the Whare Paia Maori health unit. The jury also found Harawira guilty of a charge of threatening to kill. She was jailed for nine months, BUT I'M THE RACIST!.

Bell and Dey

Posted on 22-05-2014 15:37 | By YOGI BEAR

News flash ... it is 2014 not 1840.

Jeromy, racists believe their race is superior

Posted on 22-05-2014 20:01 | By Peter Dey

Margaret Mutu does not say that the Maori race is superior. Jeromy Murkin is not saying that his race is superior. Neither are racist. Both Maori and Pakeha committed historic atrocities. Quoting endless examples of these proves nothing. It certainly does not prove that Maori are accusing Pakeha of being racist. Why is Crazyhorse resentful over Treaty settlements when Maori accept less than 10% of what they lost, and they have to properly justify their clsims.

Crazyhorse, you have no evidence of corruption

Posted on 22-05-2014 20:12 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse is ignoring the fact that the genocide in Rekohu occurred before 1840. Crazyhorse seems again to be quoting irrelevant historical atrocities by Maori in order to claim that Maori should not get justice now. That is confused and illogical thinking. It certainly does nothing to prove that the Waitangi Tribunal is corrupt. Claiming that Treaty claimants just want more, when all they want is justice, is illogical abuse supported by no credible evidence.

YOGI BEAR, We know. Do you.

Posted on 22-05-2014 20:26 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR, it is the opponents of justice for Maori who go on about events in 1840. Ignorant people keep wrongly claiming that Maori were not the first settlers in New Zealand, that the English Treaty version is not valid, that the Treaty did not grant Maori continued possession of forests and fisheries, that Maori now are not genuine descendants of those who signed the Treaty. It is only anti-Maori writers who keep ranting on about 1840. I am simply pointing out that they do not justify their claims.

MORE KILLING REWARDED

Posted on 23-05-2014 08:27 | By crazyhorse

A truly bizarre Treaty settlement Bill which is moving inexorably through parliament provides Wellington region tribe Ngati Toa with a wide range of special powers, holding reserves in fee simple, granting of governance arrangements with 11 councils giving special involvement with planning and control of large swathes of the coast. All those claims are based on 'a powerful position” asserted in a period of genocide as war parties attacked other tribes across the region. One account by Te Rauparaha's son refers to about 1600 killed in battles, many pas captured and 3500 women and children slain. The winners then 'cut up the bodies of the slain and carried them to their pa to be cooked, as was the Maori custom.” 'What a wonderful war party!” The treaty of Waitangi stopped this, maori asked for the crown to protect them, who's going to protect us from the "TREATY TROUGHERS"

Cargo Sheds

Posted on 23-05-2014 10:50 | By YOGI BEAR

I am very pleased you raised that, the Cargo shed occupants pay rent to be there. So can you tell me how much rent IWI pay for the site? Who pays the repairs on the building? Did I miss something here?

Robin

Posted on 23-05-2014 10:55 | By YOGI BEAR

"genocide occurred before 1840", that is an interesting comment, like before 1840 makes everything ok?

hmmmm

Posted on 23-05-2014 13:37 | By Jimmy

Can't we all just get along? Difference in opinions will always happen. How about doing something positive, like giving food to the homeless. Instead of trying to make everyone homeless

YOGI

Posted on 23-05-2014 16:40 | By crazyhorse

Is it just me or do I get the idea that genocide was just dandy before 1840, hmm,

Oh gosh Peter

Posted on 23-05-2014 17:58 | By YOGI BEAR

Looks like you are still trying to help out Robin, sadly the sand has long since left the gap between the toes. Less than 2% of new Zealanders speak Maori, of those many do not speak fluently. Add to that also that what is currently called "the Maori language" is not authentic anyway, it has changed hugely from say 100-200 years ago to a point for example in the 1950's the real Kamatu's then could not understand what the young kin-folk were saying. Add to that also that there are around 8% of New Zealanders who speak mandarin. So forgive my skepticism here.

Janet Wilmhurst

Posted on 23-05-2014 18:02 | By YOGI BEAR

Her reported results were based on the information she was given, nothing more. That was the desired path chosen by her funders. Her conclusions at no time states "Maori" were the first in New Zealand, if she even hinted at that would not make it past any reputable peer review. The carbon dating evidence is absolutely overwhelming that there were some seven other cultures prior. Even Janet admits that pacific Islanders (fore-fathers of Maori) were in NZ no sooner than around 1400AD. Other sites accurate carbon dating around NZ are as much as 2000 years older really leaves no doubt here.

Jimmy

Posted on 23-05-2014 18:37 | By YOGI BEAR

It is all about ... more for me, all for me ... so housing or more importantly the lack of for everyone else fades away to no importance then.

YOGI BEAR before 1840 was not ok

Posted on 23-05-2014 20:00 | By Peter Dey

It is unfortunate, but because New Zealand did not become one nation until 1840, atrocities before 1840 can not be dealt with by the Waitangi Tribunal. It has no authority to deal with anything before 1840. Anti-Maori writers who keep bringing up atrocities before 1840 are simply confirming their ignorance. What happened before 1840 was not alright, but criticising the Waitangi Tribunal for not doing anything about it is pointless mudslinging.

YOGI BEAR, you are writing fiction

Posted on 23-05-2014 20:10 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR your comments about Janet Wilmshurst make it clear that you have not actually read her research paper. It is available on the internet. It was published by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, so it has the highest academic credibility. Her carbon dating found no evidence of any other settlement in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1150 AD. Her funding came from the Government through a Crown Research Institute application. She was not funded by anybody who gave her instructions. She was independently in charge of her own research.

Oh gosh YOGI BEAR

Posted on 23-05-2014 20:35 | By Peter Dey

YOGI BEAR your comments about Maori language have nothing to do with anything else written here. You seem to be claiming that the Maori people, the Maori language, and Maori culture no longer exist. This is quite astonishing wishful thinking when we have just completed a very Maori commemoration of the battle at Pukehinahina, supported by a large number of both Maori and Pakeha. We have 22 local marae, where Maori language is a central part of activities. We have Maori MP's speaking Maori in Parliament. YOGI BEAR your comments about Maori language are just more unjustified mudslinging.

TWISTED TRIBUNAL

Posted on 23-05-2014 21:06 | By crazyhorse

Dey bleats on there is no corruption in the Waitangi tribunal, it's "squeaky clean". He forgets in previous "discussions" on SunLive we have proved otherwise. E T Durie former chairmen of the tribunal admits in published papers on, believe it or not "ethics" that research and history is only used if it suits, researchers asked to change their findings or maybe they don't get payed, Durie himself got caught out preparing briefs for his own wife Donna Hall who was going to submit them to the tribunal,he resigned but his mate Dougy Graham kept him on, but Dey is happy with this set up it get the "job" done, read all about it. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA9907/S00608.htm

Theodorus

Posted on 23-05-2014 22:57 | By Theodorus

No one has mentioned the benefits it given the Maori People by becoming ONE PEOPLE. The education,hospitals,age pension,piece and security,transport,roads the safety of the law, social security, Wins,and all modern conveniences housing and living in the same status and conditions as the rest of the modern world!

YOGI BEAR before 1840 was not ok

Posted on 24-05-2014 00:30 | By crazyhorse

Quote Dey{It is unfortunate,} that Yogi is starting to look at Facts and non treatyist history, it makes it harder for Bell and Me to hmm! stretch things, make things up, turn things around, talk bull s##t.

All Getting Along?

Posted on 24-05-2014 02:30 | By YOGI BEAR

What a great idea, just have to keep those greasy little paws out of the cookie jar don't we.

Yo bear

Posted on 24-05-2014 11:28 | By robin bell

you are once again wrong,its a very bad habit you have (could explain your sweaty (greasy)paws) Janet Wilmshurst did not set out to prove or disprove anything. She found that the earliest known evidence of human settlement was around 1150 to 1250 ad. No-one can carbon date rocks.Stop this nonsense,you fool no-one and its not funny. Perhaps at a later date,you can clear your head a little,and produce your evidence.You've been asked before. Robin Bell.

Peter Dey and I

Posted on 24-05-2014 12:27 | By robin bell

are labelled apologists by crazyhorse yogi bear etc.The Queens apology to Tainui reads. (1) The Crown acknowledges that its representatives and advisers acted unjustly and in breach of the treaty,in its dealings with Kiingitanga and Waikato in sending its forces across the Mangatawhiri in 1863. And unfairly labelling Waikato as rebels.(2) The Crown regrets and apologises unreservedly for the loss of lives arising from the invasion,and at the devastation of property and social life which resulted. Crazy horse,Yogi bear etc.claim Its all lies. You can rest assured,The Queen,does not apologise easily,and she is a very,very knowledgable person. Robin Bell.

Theodorus, we are one nation not one people

Posted on 24-05-2014 12:59 | By Peter Dey

The benefits given to the Maori People: education, hospitals, age pension, peace and security, transport, roads the safety of the law, social security, Winz, and all modern conveniences housing and living in the same status and conditions as the rest of the modern world, all come from being one nation not one people. Maori and Pakeha all contribute. Maori and Pakeha all benefit. Modern prosperity is not a gift from Pakeha to Maori. It is a shared achievement.

Pooh bear

Posted on 24-05-2014 19:37 | By Te Ponui

You are surely referring to the paws of the colonists aren't you pooh bear. Maori filled it up and were always left crumbs. Now we want a share of what is rightfully ours and no more.

half-truths, again

Posted on 24-05-2014 20:52 | By crazyhorse

In every sound bite, treaty trougher history "alteration" press release or tribal meeting, the claim will be repeated, using the basic principle of the Nazi propaganda machine, that a lie repeated often enough becomes the "new truth".

Ngai Tahu

Posted on 24-05-2014 20:55 | By crazyhorse

1867 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 1 1906 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 2 1944 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 3 1973 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 4 1998 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 5 2012 — Ngai Tahu Not So Full and Final 17% Top-up.

Crazyhorse, token compensation was a rort

Posted on 25-05-2014 22:46 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, when Governments have paid compensation they have admitted that compensation was justified. The real rort has been that Governments have continued to make totally inadequate compensation offers and told iwi to "take it or leave it". It has not been until the Waitangi Tribunal was set up that more fair compensation has been offered. For example in 1981 Tauranga Maori accepted a totally token settlement of $250,000 for land taken that was worth $200 million. Even then Treaty settlements still pay less than 10% of the value of land taken.

Ngai Tahu should pay Crown

Posted on 27-05-2014 21:55 | By crazyhorse

While South Island tribe Ngai Tahu is demanding more than the $68.5 million top-up paid this year under the relativity clause of its 1998 settlement, the Government could demand the return of the $170 million paid in 1998 on the grounds that it was paid in error. read all about it http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/276231/opinion-ngai-tahu-should-pay-crown

Ngai Tahu, the truth.

Posted on 28-05-2014 09:33 | By robin bell

1844-Crown puchases 34.5million acres,cost 14,000 pounds.Ten per-cent,3.4 million acres to be set aside for Maori.Never carried out. Crown also undertook to set aside land for schools,Hospitals etc.Never done. Ngai Tahu also claim all of the money was not paid.1849-first claim.No resolution.1868 Ngai Tahu go back to Court.Government passes law to prevent Courts from hearing or ruling on claim.1878 Smith-Nairn Commission had its funding withdrawn and went into recess.1887 Royal Commissioner Judge Mackay said "only a substantial endowment of land secured to Ngai Tahu ownership,will go some way to right so many years of neglect. His report was never enacted. Can you see a pattern developing.? Robin Bell.

Peter Dey and Robin Bell

Posted on 28-05-2014 12:46 | By Buddy Mikaere

How you can continue to debate issues with people unwilling to come out from behind a pseudonym is beyond me. If crazy horse and yogi etc. cant stand up openly and honestly for their views then who cares what they have to say? Put their comments in the rubbish tin where they belong.

Buddy Mikaere

Posted on 28-05-2014 16:51 | By crazyhorse

How about the maori folk who write on SunLive under pseudonyms or we talking different strokes for different folks "again"

PROFFESIONAL TROUGHERS

Posted on 28-05-2014 16:59 | By crazyhorse

Iwi have become experts at soft-soaping the public with talk of the ‘guardianship' of assets. Let's not be fooled by their rhetoric. Their agenda is to get their hands on as many public assets as they can, for private commercial advantage. This is evident in their claims for electromagnetic spectrum and of course, fresh water. If the Supreme Court supports the Maori councils' claim for freshwater, and the government acquiesces to such a ridiculous notion, we will end up having to pay private tribal corporations every time we turn on the tap. The reality is that the modern-day Treaty settlements are about money, not mana, and the drive for co-governance is about power not partnership.

TOP PAID TROUGHERS

Posted on 28-05-2014 17:03 | By crazyhorse

The report by Fairfax media that Crown negotiators working for Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson on the Treaty settlement process have picked up million dollar fees shows the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry has become an insatiable gravy train not just for the iwi elite, but also for ex-politicians and the ‘in' crowd.1 The 14-strong negotiating team has been paid a total of $5.5 million. Michael Dreaver, an Auckland consultant was the highest earner at $1.5m, followed by Ross Philipson, formerly of the Ministry of Economic Development, who made just over $1m. Former Members of Parliament include justice minister Sir Douglas Graham (who was found guilty last year of making misleading statements while a director of Lombard Finance) who earned $186,901, former MP and iwi chairs forum member Tukoroirangi Morgan who received $439,085, and former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, who earned $29,912.

Reply to Buddy Mikaere

Posted on 29-05-2014 13:58 | By Peter Dey

Kia ora e te rangatira. Ka nui nga mihi ki a koe mo ou mahi whakahirahira e whakanui ana i te ra whakamaumahara o te pakanga ki Pukehinahina. Congratulations Buddy. Your organising of the commemoration at Pukehinahina was superb. You pulled the whole community together. I am not annoyed by the anti-Maori comments written here by people not giving there own names. I enjoy debating the points raised, and I have learned a great deal from my research to answer wrong information. I feel that by showing that anti-Maori comments are not credible we are educating readers who are reading but not joining in debates. People can see when writers turn to abuse because they have lost a debate.

Insatiable whinging by

Posted on 29-05-2014 20:49 | By robin bell

crazy-hoss, who names people (without naming himself) engaged in what he calls "Treaty Troughing". It is true lawers,researchers and IWI representatives attract large fees,whats new? Micheal Dreaver for instance has earned on average $65,OOO per claim,hardly the troughing he's accused of by Ross Bakers spokesman crazyhorse.Its worth remembering that "Treaty Troughing" also applies to the Crown and some colonists who engaged in the same practices. Its almost over,we are moving on,but not the whinging ONZF.members.Robin Bell.

PETER DEY

Posted on 30-05-2014 13:12 | By crazyhorse

You have an opinion, that's all, who do you think you are, you use history that suites and steer clear of topics that you and Bell will take a "spanking" on, to come out with your latest dribble to mikaere proves that you think you are ""HOLIER THAN THOU"",your an apologist, you make "excuses that's all".

Crazyhorse, you prove my point

Posted on 31-05-2014 17:57 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse has just written 5 lines of insult with not a single credible argument. People can see when somebody turns to abuse because they have lost a debate.

HOLIER THAN THOU

Posted on 02-06-2014 20:39 | By crazyhorse

QUOTE DEY,{I have learned a great deal from my research to answer wrong information. I feel that by showing that anti-Maori comments are not credible we are educating readers who are reading but not joining in debates.} So your educating us, thank you, tell us about your research, what have you researched, who have you researched, and, most importantly, you put all the credibility of our, your researchers and historians and what the equate to, in the education they have received and the letters in front of their names, you know best you are right, your the man. Tell me Peter, (1) what's your education, (2) what letters do you have in front of your name, In every comment about your "educators" your historians, you have made it clear this makes them 'holier than thou" please supply the qualifications that give you the right to "educate" me or anyone

Horse,wash

Posted on 03-06-2014 09:13 | By robin bell

So crazy who gave you the right to "educate" The One N.Z.Foundation,Elocal,N.Zpcr and all the other blogspots you constantly quote.All of them conspiracy sites,all of them anti Maori and all of them make it up as they go,including you. Seven previous cultures, seashells, Monica,Allan Titford,spare us. Robin Bell.

Crazyhorse, facts not qualifications are what counts

Posted on 04-06-2014 00:16 | By Peter Dey

Some facts that I have found out during debates with Crazyhorse are 1) Maori were definitely the first settlers in New Zealand. The research of Janet Wilmshurst shows this. 2) Governor Hobson sent two official copies of the Treaty of Waitangi to England, one in English, one in Maori. Claudia Orange has the references in her book. 3) The cost of Treaty settlements has been and is less than 1% of government spending. This means that Pakeha taxpayers have no reason to complain. 4)The Waitangi Tribunal does not allow Maori leaders to make false claims. Crazyhorse has never produced credible evidence to the contrary. Isolated examples of wrongdoing are never evidence of widespread wrongdoing. 5) The book by James Bellich on the New Zealand Wars is still widely respected. Crazyhorse has provided no credible evidence to the contrary. Nitpicking over details does not discredit a book or its author.

facts not qualifications are what counts

Posted on 04-06-2014 07:49 | By crazyhorse

You have changed your tune, you say twisting the treaty and other non treayist history books are to be discarded because their authors according to you are not trained historians with letters in front of their names, you use any history that suites, the book by James Bellich is a good example both maori and other historians refuse to stand by what he has written. The facts are settlements have cost much more than the money maori have received,you have conveniently left out what the industry picked up as well and that would be impossible to establish, the cost I talk about is the cost of separatism going on 1.2 to 1.4 billion dollars a year, that's what I talk about and the constant head lines concerning some so called maori head of what ever tax payer sponsored separatist dep't stealing money.

credible evidence

Posted on 04-06-2014 08:19 | By crazyhorse

Dr MICHAEL BASSETT FORMER WAITANGI TRIBUNAL MEMBER, Historian Giselle Byrnes, have both publicly said the Waitangi tribunal is rewriting history to suite the claimants. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3577532

Twisting The Treaty AND TRUTH!

Posted on 04-06-2014 08:33 | By crazyhorse

Crikey Peter

Posted on 04-06-2014 11:59 | By robin bell

what have you done? Now wer'e going to get a tirade against the "sexuality" of Janet,Claudia,Chris.The Celtic invasion of N.Z. three thousand years ago,Chinese Generals the lot.Such fun. Robin Bell.

Dr. Michael Bassett

Posted on 04-06-2014 14:28 | By crazyhorse

FORMER WAITANGI TRIBUNAL MEMBER. "the industry doesn't want the Tribunal process ever to end. After 23 years, no decision has yet been made to close off new historical claims. The major parties dither. Labour wants the party vote of Maori; National isn't sure they mightn't need the Maori Party's support after the coming election. Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren't getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff."

Crazyhorse, one piece of evidence is not proof

Posted on 04-06-2014 18:43 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, if the Waitangi Tribunal was corrupt the Government would have had a commission of inquiry. The comments by Michael Bassett and Giselle Byrnes about the Waitangi Tribunal are expressions of concern not evidence of corruption. Complaints against individuals, such as E.T.Durie, are not proof that an organisation is corrupt. If the Waitangi Tribunal is not "squeaky clean" that does not prove that they are corrupt. They are trying to achieve justice for Maori in a reasonable time. Parliament is not made corrupt by the wrong actions of some individuals, neither is the Waitangi Tribunal.

Crazyhorse, Michael Bassett is not credible

Posted on 04-06-2014 23:03 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse likes to quote Michael Bassett because Michael Bassett served on the Waitangi Tribunal, and disagreed with what went on. However the claim that there is no end to new historical Tribunal claims and that ordinary Maori have not received a cracker from claims are both well out of date. Crazyhorse should point out that he is quoting Michael Bassett from about 10 years ago or longer. Michael Bassett has always been too pedantic over Treaty claims. He criticised aspects of the Tauranga-Moana Tribunal decision but also signed his name to the final decision. Maori have graciously accepted less than 10% of the value of Treaty claims, so the Government seems to have chosen to err on the side of Maori in Tribunal decisions. That seems reasonable.

Crazyhorse, still no credible evidence

Posted on 04-06-2014 23:52 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse says that Maori and other historians refuse to stand by what James Bellich has written. He does not name these critics so that is just a not credible smear. James Bellich wrote a book about the New Zealand wars of the mid 1800's. Criticism of his book that challenges only a few points on only a few pages means that the book as a whole is totally credible. James Bellich writes very cautiously with a great deal of reputable references. The criticism by Crazyhorse is just nit picking of isolated details.

Crazyhorse, some more research results

Posted on 05-06-2014 08:57 | By Peter Dey

The United Nations and the NZ Government recognise Maori as the indigenous race of New Zealand because they were the first settlers here. The Maori race still exists. Intermarriage does not change that. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples simply provides guidelines for the survival of Maori language and culture. It has been signed by the New Zealand Government. It does not give Maori any extra rights over Pakeha. It does not take away any rights from Pakeha.

Racism

Posted on 05-06-2014 14:10 | By Jimmy

Sick and tired of it from BOTH SIDES. Let me live free in the country I was born in.

respect part maori

Posted on 05-06-2014 14:15 | By crazyhorse

they are not the 'Distinct race of people that signed the Treaty in 1840? and therefore should not be treated as such. There is far too much foreign blood in all Maori today for the Waitangi Tribunal or Government to attempt to compensate or give special privilege such as Customary Title etc to one group of New Zealand Citizen at the expense of the others. Through intermarriage of their own free will, Maori today have more of the ancestry of the people they are claiming against than that of their Maori ancestors that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. It's a fact, this race of people have long gone. Article Three of the Tiriti o Waitangi gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed,

He does not name these critics

Posted on 05-06-2014 14:30 | By crazyhorse

Matthew Wright is rapidly emerging as one of our most prolific military and social historians, an assiduous researcher and no mere blinkered follower of academic and ideological fashion. Far from it. As our pre-eminent military historian, Christopher Pugsley, emphasises in a foreword to this book, this is a re-examination of the validity of many of the theories and assumptions underlying James Belich's seriously flawed and now out-dated The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict (1986). And without a doubt Wright demolishes many of those theories and corrects many of Belich's errors and his more fanciful and extravagant assertions, through superior knowledge of military history and ruthless logic.

PETER THANK Joris de Bres

Posted on 05-06-2014 18:45 | By crazyhorse

Another example of Deys' Fair & Dandy'for all nzer's {in December 2002, Joris de Bres human rights commissioner shocked middle NZ by comparing European treatment of Maori to the excesses of the Afghan Taliban, }joris de Bres was a marxist he schooled at University of West Berlin, a major centre of socialist activism. Apart from promoting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, advocating for the foreshore and seabed to be given to Maori, and progressing the Treaty rights agenda, one of the former Commissioner Joris de Bres' main priorities was to push for unelected seat in all forms of gov't , This is a typical example of the calibre of the people in the treaty troughing industry, remember the hulabaloo from troughers when Dame Susan got the job. she is not pro trougher.

Obsessed with compensation

Posted on 05-06-2014 18:48 | By crazyhorse

But it happened 170, Years ago," let it go", none of us were around then, there are no full maori left, I blame it on the scotch ancestry they are always keen on making a dollar, maybe Dutch as well,1/3% Dutch 1/322% maori 1/3% Scotch, maybe a little Indian too, gawd now I know what the trouble is, it's not the part maori that's treaty troughing off the NZ public, it's the other bits, sorry Dey!!. how could I have got it so wrong LOL!.

DEY SAY'S CLAIMS NEAR AN END

Posted on 05-06-2014 20:01 | By crazyhorse

I waited to get to this point before I commented on this from Dey,this is for the people who have read all the comments and visited all the links. We have a "grievance industry" not to be mistaken for a "grievance process". Once you get your head around that it makes it all a lot easier to understand, to iwi its big business. Lets look at this "not" from an angry tax payer, but from the business side of things, Dey said claims are nearing an end, remember we are talking business, would you walk away from a business that earned you millions of dollars a year and it was completely paid for by the NZ tax payer, do you think treaty troughing lawyers are going to let that happen. "Think about this real carefully" TROUGHING GO'S ON FOR EVER, THINK LABOUR OR SKUM BALL KEY WILL STOP IT??????????????????

Well done Crazyhorse, Matthew Wright is good

Posted on 05-06-2014 21:05 | By Peter Dey

Well done Crazyhorse. You seem to have produced credible criticism of James Bellich, although you seem to misquote Chris Pugsley. Your quotation is from the Press newspaper. Maybe Matthew Wright has not completely discredited James Bellich. Give us some more quotations from Matthew Wright. The United Nations and the New Zealand Government believe that the Maori race still exists, so you have not yet won that argument.

James Belich {exposed}

Posted on 06-06-2014 08:54 | By crazyhorse

Mathew Wright has also written a book called "HISTORY WITHOUT END"". He writes of how history written in NZ now is on a "revisionist slant",and for what reasons, hmmm! I would stop asking me to look into Mathew Wright he is not good for your "cause". Ian MacFarlane, webmaster of Defending Victoria website I know this guy is not a noted historian with letters in front of his name but it's another example of what your dealing with trying to expose ""revisionist"" history for troughing purposes . http://users.netconnect.com.au/~ianmac/news.html

Maori race still exists????

Posted on 06-06-2014 09:30 | By crazyhorse

But only on paper,the [1974 Maori Affairs Amendment Act]. Before 1974, a Maori was defined as someone who was half-caste or more, through intermarriage it was increasingly difficult for many Maori to work out precisely what their proportion of Maori blood was, if any!!. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 "REDEFINED" Maori as " person of the Maori race of New Zealand includes any blonde haired "descendant" of 1/32 cast or what ever, This made it possible to widened the ""definition"" of Maori, . Data from the 1996 census used to examine the impact that these new definitions brought in by Matiu Rata were having on the number of people officially categorised as Maori, found that instead of the 273,693 who indicated they were Maori-only, with the new "amendment act" the population of maori "DOUBLED OVER NIGHT"" to 580,374, SLASH OF A PEN THE TROUGHING INDUSTRY GOT 50% MORE "CLIENTS

Crazyhorse, historical Treaty claims are no longer accepted

Posted on 06-06-2014 09:32 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse is ranting nonsense about Treaty claims when he says they will go on forever. Of course they will go on forever if the Government goes on treating Maori unfairly forever. But there is now no good reason for the Government to treat Maori unfairly. Furthermore the million dollar historical settlements that Crazyhorse complains about are near an end. It has been about 6 years since historical claims have been no longer accepted. Crazyhorse's theory on Treaty troughing is just that, an irrational theory totally contradicted by fact. Historical Treaty claims are no longer accepted.

Crazyhorse, Matthew Wright does not support you

Posted on 06-06-2014 15:51 | By Peter Dey

Matthew Wright's book "Two Peoples One Land" does not discredit James Bellich's book "The New Zealand Wars". Matthew Wright finds fault with Bellich's military analysis but overall he is sympathetic to Bellich's point of view. He certainly supports the view of S.Quaddel about the battle of Gate Pa. Matthew Wright wrote that revisionist historians "did give new insight into many old stereotypes. In particular it exploded the myth of perfect race relations and explored Victorian racial ideology from a new and largely compelling perspective" (page 252).

TARIAN TURIA SAID

Posted on 07-06-2014 08:03 | By crazyhorse

(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). Do you consider for example the effects of the trauma of colonisation? I know that psychology has accepted the relevance of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). I understand that much of the research done in this area has focussed on the trauma suffered by the Jewish survivors of the holocaust of World War Two. I also understand the same has been done with the Vietnam veterans. What seems to not have received similar attention is the holocaust suffered by indigenous people including Maori as a result of colonial contact and behaviour. The Waitangi Tribunal made such a reference in its Taranaki Report of 1996 and I recollect what appeared to be a "but our holocaust was worse than your holocaust" debate. ""HOLOCAUST"""and (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). is something you get when you were actually there , CONCOCTED FOR CONTEMPORARY CLAIMS, TO GO ON FOREVER.

YOU WORK HARD PETER

Posted on 07-06-2014 09:03 | By crazyhorse

I respect you for that, you say Mathew wright overall is sympathetic to Bellich's point of view, that can mean anything!!, I am not going to try and comment on the battle of Gate Pa in respect of the people who died, and so much has been written it's hard to know what to believe as very few people agree on exactly what happened, all I will say is Bilich was prone to exaggerate, (1) The Maori 'invented' trench warfare in the mid-19th century (trenches had already been used in European conflicts, with the Lines of Torre Vedras being case in point. (2) Gate Pa took heavier shellfire per square inch than any point of the Somme in WW1 ( Gate Pa had an 8-hour bombardment with 16 field pieces and one large-calibre naval gun, compared to 950 large-calibre modern artillery pieces deluging Bazentin Ridge with 650lb of shells.

Crazyhorse, Matthew Wright supports S.Quaddel

Posted on 07-06-2014 15:24 | By Peter Dey

S.Quaddel pointed out that the disparaging comments about Maori at the battle of Gate Pa by R.Paterson were totally unjustified. Matthew Wright makes no disparaging comments about Maori at all in his account of the battle in his book Two Peoples One Land. He criticises some of the military details of James Bellich but that does not discredit a whole book. Matthew Wright appears to endorse what S.Quaddel has written.

Crazyhorse, you ignore the evidence of your own eyes

Posted on 07-06-2014 15:30 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse you are in denial, as they say, when you claim that the Maori race no longer exists, and you are surrounded by people of Maori ancestry who practise Maori culture and speak the Maori language. You could not maintain to any person of mixed Chinese, Indian, or Japanese ancestry that they are not Chinese, Indian, or Japanese. To do so for Maori is an illogical self-contradiction.

Crazyhorse, TOW Amendment Act 2006

Posted on 07-06-2014 15:42 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse you should read the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 2006. It set the date of September 1st 2008 as the final date for making historical Treaty claims. There have been no historical Treaty claims since then. Million dollar historical claims are now nearly all settled. There are no longer million dollar settlements to sustain Treaty troughing or a grievance industry. These terms are anti_Maori smears unsupported by any current evidence. Most lawyers are highly paid. Criticising Treaty lawyers for being highly paid is one-eyed nonsense.

Crazyhorse, TOW Amendment Act 2006

Posted on 07-06-2014 18:51 | By crazyhorse

Peter I am not talking about historical claims I'm talking about contemporary claims!, these can be infinite, water, wind, but worryingly a Wellington Iwi is looking to take social injustice claims to the tribunal, I put Turia's little speech on the holocaust as an example of what we could be dealing with. I found this on tribunal site. {Contemporary claims} The Tribunal also deals with a number of urgent, contemporary claims on matters of current government policy. These claims usually take only a few weeks, ending in a report and recommendations to government. Any response involves the government department or agency responsible for the policy. Since new contemporary issues are likely to arise, Tribunal work on such claims will continue.

TOW ACT

Posted on 08-06-2014 09:28 | By surfsup

So Mr Dey what is the situation with some tribes now able to come back for a top up due to settlement $$$$ going above a set figure.Full and final except when ?

[1974 Maori Affairs Amendment Act].

Posted on 08-06-2014 09:34 | By crazyhorse

People wonder why Kiwi's get so angry and frustrated with what go's on in NZ, how do you get away with something like this, we have not got enough "clients so we will invent them", with the slash of a pen behind nzer's backs we go from 273,693 to 580,374 "part" maori, how can anyone have confidence in ministers in parliament that liken us to "Nazi's" or the National Gov't that "slides" the Nga Tahu negotiator Chris Finlayson into minister for treaty settlements, one minute Finlayson is giving a speech about, quote, {"I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown,}Neck minute, he's the man in charge of the trough, then before Dame Susan Devoy as human rights commissioner we have a "Marxist socialist" who likens Kiwi's to the Taliban in their treatment of Maori, just me or is this "WRONG"

WIPE OUT ENTIRE RACE

Posted on 08-06-2014 09:56 | By crazyhorse

BUT WE STILL WANT SOME MONEY AHHHHH! Chatham Islands Ngati Mutunga agreed on who will represent them in treaty negotiations but there is a big question of why any payout would be suitable for the descendants of those who invaded the Chatham Islands in 1835 and murdered hundreds of peaceful Moriori. Taranaki Maori who were living at Port Nicholson uneasily in the presence of the hyper-aggressive Ngati Toa tribe decided to move to the Chatham Islands. "problem was" that the Chatham Islands were already occupied -- by the peaceful Moriori people. November 19, 1835 Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga tribes "hired" a ship and landed in the Chatham's and murdered and ate a large number of the population, the rest were kept as slaves. 179 years later, the descendents, the perpetrators of this genocide are lining up for a payout for imagined alleged acts and omissions from settler Gov't.

You must be logged in to make a comment.

LATEST NEWS

14-Dec 16:57

	Yes, it will protect young people.

	No, itu2019s unrealistic and unnecessary.

	Only with strong parental controls. (Based on the Governmentu2019s proposed Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill).