ONCE AGAIN, the New Zealand state must decide if it should answer a Māori push with a Pakeha shove. The Māori King, Tuheitia, has summoned the leaders of Maoridom to the Kingitanga marae at Turangawaewae to formulate a response to the Coalition Government’s “de-Maorification” agenda. It is doubtful whether most New Zealanders, back at work now and already missing the sunshine and surf, are at all aware of the potential for disaster inherent in the King’s hui of Saturday, 20 January 2024. Not since the early 1860s have Māori and Pakeha risked so much over the meaning and status of te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Indeed, there is no point, Andrew, if you are working from the premise that the Maori chieftains gathered at Waitangi in February 1840 drew up the Treaty themselves, from first principles, and then presented it to the British visitors for their signature. The Treaty had its birth in London - not the Bay of Islands. You are living in an alternative historical reality.
This article infers the existence of two separate entities, Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua. In reality many of us share ancestry from both sides of this alleged divide, and many of believe this differentiation exists purely in the minds of the identity-obsessed extremists, not in any reality.
Very few NZ citizens (of any genetic background) want a civil war, nor do we want any one race or identity group to be given disproportionate control over our nation. Trotter's suggestion of possible appeasement of racial extremism while we prepare for civil war is both obscene and absurd. What is required is for our nation to drop the identity obsession and appreciate our common humanity. No one alive today had any part in the ToW process and the suggestion that any descendent of immigrants who arrived since that time should have different political rights is fraught with such potential for violence that the idea should be rejected out of hand.
The only future for this nation is finding common ground, not separatism. Interbreeding has resulted in a situation where many of the radical Maori activists have less Maori DNA than ordinary NZ citizens who do not consider their identity grouping as the dominant element of their existence. A civil war based on self-allocated identity groupings is beyond ridiculous, and something that the vast majority of us have zero interest in. Not to mention the very real possibility of siblings etc finding themselves on opposite sides of the conflict.
But it also must be said, if a grouping consisting of less than 15% of the population attempts to overthrow the political rights of the other 85% they should seriously consider the possible repercussions first.
I don't know how you get "racist" out of that comment, Andrew. Translating the conceptual and practical elements of the agreement drafted by Hobson and his advisers in 1840 was (and clearly remains) problematic when the language of the indigenous people does not contain equivalent words for the ideas in play. The most notable example being the term "kawanatanga".
I do not see any contradiction between the ideas expressed in "Where The People Walk" and "When Push Comes To Shove". The former looks at the reasons behind the Right's victory in last year's general election, and the latter examines a potential domestic security crisis confronting the newly elected Coalition Government.
That crisis arises out of the unwillingness of some New Zealanders to accept the policy consequences of a democratic election. It is exacerbated by the stated willingness of the opponents of the new government's race relations policy to go to extreme lengths to stop it.
At the core of the argument of "When Push Comes To Shove" is the weakness of the NZ state - especially in relation to dealing with massive and well-organised protest action. A weak state is forced to defend itself by the use of deadly force. Unfortunately, the use of such force, almost inevitably, makes things worse.
Hence my conclusion that the new government would be wise to reach a compromise with the opponents of its race-relations policies - or even put them on hold - until it amasses the wherewithal to make them stick.
The Munich Agreement of 1938 has been roundly condemned for "appeasing" Hitler. It was, however, immensely popular at the time and, more importantly, it bought Great Britain another year in which to re-arm. That extra year made all the difference - when push came to shove.
Conjuring up the prospect of civil unrest, much less civil war, is far too simplistic, CT. Besides, if it came to that, any winner-loser resolution by that means would leave one side bitter and mutinous. The treaty cancer would remain untreated, free to do its rotten work on social cohesion and any prospect of a mutually advantageous future for this country.
There is another option which by-passes the fight or concede dilemma you propose.
That is - as a first step - genuinely open, frank, structured analysis of the treaty arguments on all sides. This is a vital circuit-breaker, I believe, because it gives the decent folks in this country an opportunity to have their say. So far, the mainstream media, academics and the public service have extinguished their right to speak by denying them a public voice. Understandably many, like me, are resentful as a result. Festering resentment is a first step to mutiny.
Second, in our free analysis, we must respect without rebuke the proposition that Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840, that there was no promise of constitutional partnership, that Māori are entitled to respect as endemic people but not to privileges which subordinate or extinguish the rights of other Kiwis, and that Māori are entitled to forms of self-determination which do not intrude on comparable expectations of other peoples of this country.
Let's hear from the historians and academics on all sides of this issue, not just those whose research and conclusions advance today's new-treaty agenda.
Imperfect though they may be, the Treaty policies of this coalition government give us a better shot at discussing these matters than Labour were ever prepared to offer. And this is me, a progressive Leftie speaking in support of the conservatives. Regrettably, the mainstream media's partisan claims of a de-maorification agenda militate against free consideration of the issues.
Free-to-speak analysis will be messy. Positions at the extremes will likely resort to nastiness. But sunshine has a habit of exposing mess. It is also healthy. Free debate has to happen. At the very least, we Kiwis have a natural right to determine our future collectively, equably and without fear.
I don't get it - should everyone just rollover and accept this government's racist, anti-worker, climate change denying, anti.environment agenda or should we protest? Which is what the King's hui is about - what to do. The rest of the opinion piece is some sort of deluded conspiracy theory.
Really, Sue? Perhaps you should read the article again. My essential argument is that, unlike 1863, todays "settler government" couldn't repress anything!
Who are these Tangata Tiriti etc? Every New Zealand citizen is here by right of birth, descent or naturalization. I reject these confected terms served up by racial extremists. The poison must be drawn.
This is a fair assessment. I wonder if things could have been managed easier without the excesses of the secret agenda behind he Puapua being accommodated by the a Ardern Government.
This BS is only ever going to end by scrapping the Waitangi Tribunal, a racist 'Court' that only people purporting to be Maori can preside over (do they have to prove their DNA?), where only Maori can enter, unless invited, and where Hearsay evidence is admissible. Hearsay is inadmissible in every other Court of the land because "Truth depreciates through the process of repetition". Having said that, the next aim is to enact a Written Constitution where the Treaty is no longer relevant. NZ is one of 3 countries in the world without a written constitution and you only have to look at the other 2 (UK and Israel) to appreciate where we are heading.
I think we should see the big hui on Janurary 20th as healthy feedback in an open democracy. Whether Shane Jones is right or not about the iwi gathering being a moan fest, I think Chris Trotter is over-reacting to expect the worst outcomes. The iwi gathering may decide they prefer the democracy they have got, and their cultural self determination can happen regardless. That is just as likely as any grievance based rebellion and lawlessness from Maori. I think level heads will prevail.
Even if I do not agree with all Chris Trotter said, I think he raises important issues that need to be addressed. I am not well-versed in Treaty issues but I accept that the treaty was not well-respected by the British.
New Zealand is not neatly divided into Maori and non-Maori nor should it be. Maori elites and activists do not necessarily inherit the rights to whatever treaty benefits were not properly accorded to Tanagata whenua. But there seems to be a tendency on the left to defer excessively to those activists/elites.
There is one area where Maori have suffered more than most, and which affects many New Zealanders. That is the question poverty, access to housing, and the gap between rich and poor.
I would like to see the treaty respected by committment and action to properly address these poverty issues, without discrimination according to race, in a way that benefits everybody, including those who particulalry identify as Tangata Whenua.
Re "the enormous difficulties experienced by the New Zealand Police in assembling sufficient non-lethal force to clear Parliament Grounds of anti-government protesters in March 2022."
The enormous difficulties were caused by initial fannying around being nice, inclusive and tolerant. Had the first damage, the first tent, the first parking and excessive noise and littering issues been promptly addressed the initial crowd of basically mild protesters would not have brewed up a spirit of entitlement, easy meat for the arrival of the disinformation and rabble rouser stars with their heady tales of conspiracy cabals.
Waiting till the situation was so volatile, when within the manipulated chaos firebugs were placed strategically, was madness.
Chris seems to draw a firm line between the desires of Maori and Pakeha. This isn't so. There are many Pakeha who oppose the Coalition Government's "de-Maorification" agenda and will stand with manu whenua on this important issue. In the U.S. 1960's & 70's Blacks Civil Right Movement, Blacks stood alone. The recent Black Lives Matter movement saw Blacks and Whites stand together.
Indeed, there is no point, Andrew, if you are working from the premise that the Maori chieftains gathered at Waitangi in February 1840 drew up the Treaty themselves, from first principles, and then presented it to the British visitors for their signature. The Treaty had its birth in London - not the Bay of Islands. You are living in an alternative historical reality.
This article infers the existence of two separate entities, Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua. In reality many of us share ancestry from both sides of this alleged divide, and many of believe this differentiation exists purely in the minds of the identity-obsessed extremists, not in any reality.
Very few NZ citizens (of any genetic background) want a civil war, nor do we want any one race or identity group to be given disproportionate control over our nation. Trotter's suggestion of possible appeasement of racial extremism while we prepare for civil war is both obscene and absurd. What is required is for our nation to drop the identity obsession and appreciate our common humanity. No one alive today had any part in the ToW process and the suggestion that any descendent of immigrants who arrived since that time should have different political rights is fraught with such potential for violence that the idea should be rejected out of hand.
The only future for this nation is finding common ground, not separatism. Interbreeding has resulted in a situation where many of the radical Maori activists have less Maori DNA than ordinary NZ citizens who do not consider their identity grouping as the dominant element of their existence. A civil war based on self-allocated identity groupings is beyond ridiculous, and something that the vast majority of us have zero interest in. Not to mention the very real possibility of siblings etc finding themselves on opposite sides of the conflict.
But it also must be said, if a grouping consisting of less than 15% of the population attempts to overthrow the political rights of the other 85% they should seriously consider the possible repercussions first.
I don't know how you get "racist" out of that comment, Andrew. Translating the conceptual and practical elements of the agreement drafted by Hobson and his advisers in 1840 was (and clearly remains) problematic when the language of the indigenous people does not contain equivalent words for the ideas in play. The most notable example being the term "kawanatanga".
You and me both, Ben!
I do not see any contradiction between the ideas expressed in "Where The People Walk" and "When Push Comes To Shove". The former looks at the reasons behind the Right's victory in last year's general election, and the latter examines a potential domestic security crisis confronting the newly elected Coalition Government.
That crisis arises out of the unwillingness of some New Zealanders to accept the policy consequences of a democratic election. It is exacerbated by the stated willingness of the opponents of the new government's race relations policy to go to extreme lengths to stop it.
At the core of the argument of "When Push Comes To Shove" is the weakness of the NZ state - especially in relation to dealing with massive and well-organised protest action. A weak state is forced to defend itself by the use of deadly force. Unfortunately, the use of such force, almost inevitably, makes things worse.
Hence my conclusion that the new government would be wise to reach a compromise with the opponents of its race-relations policies - or even put them on hold - until it amasses the wherewithal to make them stick.
The Munich Agreement of 1938 has been roundly condemned for "appeasing" Hitler. It was, however, immensely popular at the time and, more importantly, it bought Great Britain another year in which to re-arm. That extra year made all the difference - when push came to shove.
Conjuring up the prospect of civil unrest, much less civil war, is far too simplistic, CT. Besides, if it came to that, any winner-loser resolution by that means would leave one side bitter and mutinous. The treaty cancer would remain untreated, free to do its rotten work on social cohesion and any prospect of a mutually advantageous future for this country.
There is another option which by-passes the fight or concede dilemma you propose.
That is - as a first step - genuinely open, frank, structured analysis of the treaty arguments on all sides. This is a vital circuit-breaker, I believe, because it gives the decent folks in this country an opportunity to have their say. So far, the mainstream media, academics and the public service have extinguished their right to speak by denying them a public voice. Understandably many, like me, are resentful as a result. Festering resentment is a first step to mutiny.
Second, in our free analysis, we must respect without rebuke the proposition that Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840, that there was no promise of constitutional partnership, that Māori are entitled to respect as endemic people but not to privileges which subordinate or extinguish the rights of other Kiwis, and that Māori are entitled to forms of self-determination which do not intrude on comparable expectations of other peoples of this country.
Let's hear from the historians and academics on all sides of this issue, not just those whose research and conclusions advance today's new-treaty agenda.
Imperfect though they may be, the Treaty policies of this coalition government give us a better shot at discussing these matters than Labour were ever prepared to offer. And this is me, a progressive Leftie speaking in support of the conservatives. Regrettably, the mainstream media's partisan claims of a de-maorification agenda militate against free consideration of the issues.
Free-to-speak analysis will be messy. Positions at the extremes will likely resort to nastiness. But sunshine has a habit of exposing mess. It is also healthy. Free debate has to happen. At the very least, we Kiwis have a natural right to determine our future collectively, equably and without fear.
I don't get it - should everyone just rollover and accept this government's racist, anti-worker, climate change denying, anti.environment agenda or should we protest? Which is what the King's hui is about - what to do. The rest of the opinion piece is some sort of deluded conspiracy theory.
Really, Sue? Perhaps you should read the article again. My essential argument is that, unlike 1863, todays "settler government" couldn't repress anything!
Blame it on Wikipedia!
Who are these Tangata Tiriti etc? Every New Zealand citizen is here by right of birth, descent or naturalization. I reject these confected terms served up by racial extremists. The poison must be drawn.
This is a fair assessment. I wonder if things could have been managed easier without the excesses of the secret agenda behind he Puapua being accommodated by the a Ardern Government.
This BS is only ever going to end by scrapping the Waitangi Tribunal, a racist 'Court' that only people purporting to be Maori can preside over (do they have to prove their DNA?), where only Maori can enter, unless invited, and where Hearsay evidence is admissible. Hearsay is inadmissible in every other Court of the land because "Truth depreciates through the process of repetition". Having said that, the next aim is to enact a Written Constitution where the Treaty is no longer relevant. NZ is one of 3 countries in the world without a written constitution and you only have to look at the other 2 (UK and Israel) to appreciate where we are heading.
I think we should see the big hui on Janurary 20th as healthy feedback in an open democracy. Whether Shane Jones is right or not about the iwi gathering being a moan fest, I think Chris Trotter is over-reacting to expect the worst outcomes. The iwi gathering may decide they prefer the democracy they have got, and their cultural self determination can happen regardless. That is just as likely as any grievance based rebellion and lawlessness from Maori. I think level heads will prevail.
Even if I do not agree with all Chris Trotter said, I think he raises important issues that need to be addressed. I am not well-versed in Treaty issues but I accept that the treaty was not well-respected by the British.
New Zealand is not neatly divided into Maori and non-Maori nor should it be. Maori elites and activists do not necessarily inherit the rights to whatever treaty benefits were not properly accorded to Tanagata whenua. But there seems to be a tendency on the left to defer excessively to those activists/elites.
There is one area where Maori have suffered more than most, and which affects many New Zealanders. That is the question poverty, access to housing, and the gap between rich and poor.
I would like to see the treaty respected by committment and action to properly address these poverty issues, without discrimination according to race, in a way that benefits everybody, including those who particulalry identify as Tangata Whenua.
Re "the enormous difficulties experienced by the New Zealand Police in assembling sufficient non-lethal force to clear Parliament Grounds of anti-government protesters in March 2022."
The enormous difficulties were caused by initial fannying around being nice, inclusive and tolerant. Had the first damage, the first tent, the first parking and excessive noise and littering issues been promptly addressed the initial crowd of basically mild protesters would not have brewed up a spirit of entitlement, easy meat for the arrival of the disinformation and rabble rouser stars with their heady tales of conspiracy cabals.
Waiting till the situation was so volatile, when within the manipulated chaos firebugs were placed strategically, was madness.
Chris seems to draw a firm line between the desires of Maori and Pakeha. This isn't so. There are many Pakeha who oppose the Coalition Government's "de-Maorification" agenda and will stand with manu whenua on this important issue. In the U.S. 1960's & 70's Blacks Civil Right Movement, Blacks stood alone. The recent Black Lives Matter movement saw Blacks and Whites stand together.