93 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

Well said Ben. The reality is course is that there are elements that profit by fomenting separatism, either financially or in some other way, with far too many useful apologetic idiots that have fallen for the entitled victimhood card being played. These born again latter I contend are the real danger, often holding leadership positions in many of our institutions, not least MSM.

Expand full comment

Give Māori their stolen land back and everything will be fine.

Expand full comment

This is precisely the problem. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up for this very reason, and much of the stolen land (primarily during the 1860's war period) was returned or compensated.

Unfortunately now the 'stolen land' concept is more widely used to describe much of NZ, the vast majority of which was sold and purchased legally under the terms of the time. Historical revisionism suggests these transactions were unjust, but they were legal at time and correcting them now creates further injustice to the current population.

This creates the situation where a large percentage of the non-Maori population who have legally bought property and often spent a lifetime of paying off mortgages are now told they have stolen the land they are on. It may well be that people happy with or oblivious to Maori aspiration will not be so happy to discover they are expected to hand over the land they have worked hard to pay for for a lifetime. No one who has paid huge money for a mortgage will believe they have stolen anything.

The "NZ is Stolen land" argument is a mechanism to transfer historical grievances to contemporary ones, and is absolutely guaranteed to create bad feeling, racial division, conflict and violence. Sadly, this actually appears to be the intention in some cases.

Expand full comment

Less than one percent of stolen land has been returned.

Over 1.4 million hectares of land was confiscated from Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki Māori. At $45K / ha this equates to $58 billion in today's value. However, the total value of compensation paid for all claims is less than $3b including the Ngāi Tahu claim which covered the whole South Island. For reference the crown paid about $2b compensation to investors in South Canterbury Finance and spends $14b on superannuation every year.

To be honest, Pākeha NZ is lucky Māori are so magnanimous. All they ask for in return is respect and a say in the way their tāonga are managed.

Expand full comment

Hi Chris, you reference the issues of the 1860's Land Wars period, and fair enough. There are long standing grievances regarding the events and the law as it stood at the time. But how about we go back 30 years further, to the Musket War period. That period witnessed the genocide of approximately 30% of the Maori population at the hands of other Maori. The survivors suffered huge land dispossession, as well as economic loss, slavery etc. Would you advocate for the descendants of this massacre to give up the land they stole from other Iwi to the descendants of these victims? If not, why not?

The issue here is that it is unlikely that any human alive today is not descended from someone who suffered land dispossession at some time in history. Where do you draw the line? For me the line is drawn where modern communities who are innocent of events before their birth would be made to suffer for the benefit of the historical grievances of others. This just moves historical grievance into modern grievance, and does not bode well for civil society. Even more so when the attempted resolution is based entirely on racial lines, and many of the people potentially impacted by restoration of what you call stolen land may be recent immigrants or otherwise unrelated in any way to the perpetrators of the crimes you mention.

Expand full comment

Ben I've had this discussion with you on TDB site and seem you've kept up this charade about 'Maori musket wars' and any other nit picking BS generally about maori to justify your narrative. The 'genocide' you claimed that happened during the musket wars hasn't been recorded as such because it never happened! We also touched on our discussion with this narrative about the way these death numbers were recorded by the CMS that shouldn't be relied upon because of the methods they employed.

You also mentioned that most of the confiscated happened in the 1860s forgetting to mention that an imperial foreign capitalist system had imposed itself on a disadvantaged population to that system of governance and that same system is here today.

The Native lands ACT and the Native schools ACT further undermined Maori ability to operate under this Westminster system that suits pakeha but Maori have continue to struggle with because of the systemic bias that reflected in high incarceration, high unemployment and lower standards of life. Your narrative only appeases ignorant pakeha that don't have a clue of our country's history nor experience systemic racism. And stop pretending to be Maori use your real name.

Expand full comment

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/the-musket-wars

I don't recall you providing any evidence that the musket wars did not happen. I fully appreciate it is hard to prove a negative, but I am yet to find a historical reference suggesting this disaster did not occur.

It's true that my formal knowledge of NZ history is limited to stage 2 BAhons level, but I don't accept your categorisation that I have no clue about the history this country. But this is the TDB way, ad hominem all the time. You're probably a great guy, it's a shame you tend to lower your discussions to personal insults as this is not conducive to furthering rational discourse.

No one thinks Maori have had a care-free time, but this is equally true of all people everywhere across the globe. Personally I care a lot less about the lives of my ancestors 7-12+ generations ago, and more about my children. Do I want to see them grow up in a country where the only thing that matters is who can put up the best grievance case for things that occurred 200 years ago? I could be totally mistaken but it appears to me you would be very happy to see another round of massive land dispossession, provided it happened to any or all of the 300 or so non-Maori ethnicities represented in modern NZ. Do you not realise that all this just transfers existing grievance from past wrongs to current grievances for present wrongs? Do you think the 85% (or so) of the population who do not identify as Maori will be willing to accept that?

Why does my DNA interest you so much? It comes across as another identity obsession. Most of us genuinely do not care about skin colour, religion, gender, sexual preference, but focus on the spirit of the people we come across. Identity politics is destroying us as a nation, I refuse to be part of it.

Expand full comment

How can stolen land that has already been stolen be put right by giving the stolen land back to the people that first stole it. I know lots of people refuse to accept that Maori stole the land off others but till full true history of the land can be authenticated that all agree on, there is always going to be issues, I think everyone has a different view on New Zealands history and they very different but science, diecoveries and DNA are changing all that and it is not looking good for Maori.

Expand full comment

I think you're understating "lots of people". Please name any academic or scientist who holds this view.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/nzs-first-settler-theory-is-absolutely-wrong/

Expand full comment

That article only strengthen the case that there is no common ground when it comes to New Zealand history. Maybe they should have explained where all the infrastructure and artifacts that keep turning up around New Zealand or how come there are people living in New Zealand who they or their ancestors have never been out of New Zealand have a DNA that goes back before Maori but says the are not of Maori descent. Did these artifacts and infrastructure just fall from the sky one day ? can DNA not be trusted ?

Most people would fascinated and want to know more but not here, it is all huss huss.

Expand full comment

Ben, that’s absolutely brilliant commentary. Thank you for saying what I believe a substantial majority think as well.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Just replying here to say that limiting replies on your most recent article where you once again moan about anti-war protestors is extremely funny, very free speech of you.

Expand full comment

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".

Expand full comment

Exactly Chris, it's not as if this issue (ambiguity and imprecision) isn't obvious, it's that it is often ignored or, worse, willfully exploited.

While the the treaty's translation into Maori was something of a last minute affair it does appear to have been done without guile and with honest good intent despite the difficulties you've mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi#Drafting_and_translating_the_treaty

Not wishing to single out Andrew here; disturbingly and dangerously insult, obscuration, deflection and deception have become widespread and to characterise much of our discussion and thinking. What happens, personally and societally, when we fail to courageously confront the truth, when we allow the truth to become subordinate to feelings and fabrication (ideology)? Nothing good that's for sure.

"The truth is a terrible thing, but not when you compare it with falsehood." Jordan Peterson.

Expand full comment

The concept of kawanatanga was well understood among Maori prior to the signing of the Treaty, going back to 1814 if not earlier. "Na i te tekau ma rima o te tau o te rangatiratanga o Taipiria Hiha, i a Ponotio Pirate e kawana ana i huria..." There you have it, rangatiratanga and kawana in the same sentence, clearly defining the difference between the two concepts.

Expand full comment

You and me both, Ben!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Thanks enormously for the response Chris - maybe the first article ("Where the People Walk") lulled me into a false sense of security" , whereas the second ("When Push comes to Shove"" is really quite shocking in its implications. Hence my cognitive dissonance, or should that be emotional discomfort !

Be assured I really appreciate your insights (have done so for years) but I guess in this case I just have to hope you're wrong about the imminence of unmanageable turmoil and right about the possibilities of negotiation/compromise or at least meaningful communication between the Coaltion and those in Maoridom who are feeling afronted. Kia kaha.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Why should I respect without rebuke clear and demonstrable falsehoods such as Māori ceded sovereignty?

Expand full comment

Maybe refer to the original Treaty, instead of a version?

Expand full comment

The original treaty being Te Tiriti?

Expand full comment

Oh dear, you are confusing drafts of the treaty with the treaty that was actually discussed and signed and is known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Expand full comment

There was (and is) obvious problems with translation and interpretation, largely due to the manifold inadequacies of the Maori language. You see that exemplified in the use of the fabrication "Te Tiriti" (The Treaty). The imprecise meaning of terms like "taonga" or "rangatiratanga" means the thing's more than a bit of a mess to be honest. What are, and what was intended to be, the bounds of chiefly authority and ownership? The power to require compliance and impose punishment? To everyone? Control and ownership over the commons we all share? Even the radio spectrum? Or more like the type of ownership we all enjoy over our own businesses and property?

The assertion that there was no ceding of sovereignty is a real stretch, sorry. The Chiefs and their people certainly acted as if they had ceded ultimate sovereignty to the Crown; that is de facto acceptance. No?

Even so what would a country look like, how would it function, with some sort of dual standard of sovereignty and citizenship, if the interactions between the people and the people with the state were divided by race; or, even more absurdly, two sorts of separate state in the one country? The Lebanon of the south pacific?

It's a profoundly silly idea.

Expand full comment

I read your contribution with interest Basil Brush and find myself agreeing with almost everything in your well written comment. Especially “Let's hear from the historians and academics on all sides of this issue“. But your argument totally falls over with your one bald statement that “...we must respect without rebuke the proposition that Māori did cede sovereignty in 1840”.

“Frank structured analysis” from a range of reputable “historians and academics” has been widely published over many years and concludes that (1) Te Tiriti, written in Māori, is the version that takes precendence, being the version signed by more than 500 chiefs whereas the English version was signed by 36, and, that (2) in that Tiriti, Māori did not cede sovereignity.

Expand full comment

Given Don's point, I suppose the key question is rather : what became of sovereignty in the intervening 180 years ,i.e. how has it evolved , and what would it mean in practical terms if sovereignty lies anywhere other than in "We the people of New Zealand (also known as Aotearoa)" ?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Really, Sue? Perhaps you should read the article again. My essential argument is that, unlike 1863, todays "settler government" couldn't repress anything!

Expand full comment

Blame it on Wikipedia!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Some people consider themselves to be tangata tiriti because they believe that their right to reside in this country derives from the British monarch, who is, they believe, sovereign in New Zealand by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi. Therefore the concept of tangata tiriti is a direct expression of colonialist political assumptions. Quite rightly Pakeha who are tangata motu reject the "tangata tiriti" label, just as they reject the British claim to sovereignty.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Most definitely could do without the secretive agenda. I received a copy of He Puapua from my cousin in the UK before any real mention here?? Dangerous.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"without discrimination according to race"

That's the nub of the whole thing. We are,, whatever our heritage, our strengths and shortcomings, equal before the law. That is the message the government need to regularly repeat: we are one people.

Expand full comment

If the current interpretation of Te Tiriti is legally adopted this will not be the case, NZ will be a race-based state where degrees of citizenship depends on DNA. How anyone who considers themselves to be on the political Left can welcome an openly racist State as a good thing is beyond me. I suspect I am not the only NZ citizen who is surprised to find that our views of treating people the same regardless of skin colour, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion etc is not an indication of being part of the political left as we had once believed, but actually "Far Right".

Expand full comment

Your Head of State, King Charles, owes his position entirely to his DNA Ben. Are you happy with that? Do you intend to do anything about it?

Expand full comment

DNA-based monarchies are the prime example of the absolute stupidity of basing important issues on DNA or any other kinds of identity politics. The old meme about animals not letting the most stupid or weak rule over them comes to mind.

I'd vote for a republic if given the chance, but do not feel strongly enough about it to start a revolution over as our monarchy foolishness has no real impact on my life in modern NZ.

Expand full comment

OK, but you have to concede that it is the Westminster system, not rangatiratanga, which is "DNA-based". The colonialists won't give you a chance to vote for a republic or a whakaminenga or rangatiratanga. They won't even let you take up an elected seat in parliament unless you pledge allegiance to a sovereign whose authority derives solely from his DNA. Perhaps you should think again about whether "our... foolishness has no real impact..". Foolishness always has an impact. We are seeing it right now in the form of the colonialist government's move to define the "principles of the Treaty" in defiance of the findings of its own judiciary and the common sense understanding of anyone who knows the meanings of words whether in the English language and te reo Maori.

Expand full comment

Yes of course, most cultures ended up trying to push a DNA based system. This is human instinct towards nepotism to further the interests of family, expressed politically. North Korea must be the greatest example, a "peoples republic" where the same family has ruled for 3 generations! Maori society is also based on nepotism, as are all human institutions including the modern NZ Government.

Personally I think King Charles is a wally, and not at all fit for many jobs at all, let alone the nominal head of the Commonwealth. Far too much inbreeding, perhaps. I far prefer ability, not DNA to determine who should lead us. Which is also why I am also hesitant about accepting traditional iwi leaders, based merely on genetics.

I think NZ needs to discuss the ToW articles and principles, because avoiding doing so is creating tension and resentment from all sides.

Saying we have a colonialist Govt is also causing tension. The oldest NZer is 110, so born 1913. is it really a colonialist Govt when the colonial period was generations before the birth of our oldest citizen? Maybe we should try to live in the reality we have now, rather than chase what might have been. Far too many conflicts around the world are based on events from hundreds or thousands of years ago, we need to learn to live with each other.

Expand full comment

Not under the colonialist regime, where the position of Head of State is granted according to whakapapa and is the exclusive preserve of those of the British race.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

On the other hand, there are plenty of folks of Māori ancestry who have no truck with the nationalists and new-treatyists who presume to speak for them. Unlike the treaty revisionists who have enlisted euphoric advocates in the public service, media and our education industry, they lack any means of having a say.

Expand full comment

Mana whenua has not as yet been defined by those who use it! I will not let anyone put me in a 'racial group' based on THEIR interpretation of my heritage, values and culture! This article is blatantly adding fuel to the threat of a fire....not impressed. My Dad fought in 28th Māori Battalion in a real war for a real country, New Zealand. This is a threat intimating there will be a repeat of 1860's?? All I see is 'ideological power games'. There is for example NO mention of Te Reo protection in the Waikato Rautapu Settlement Act 1995 of which Tuku speaks. Very well written comments from Ben, thank you for being articulate.

Part of the 85%

Expand full comment

How strong is the solidarity of those pakeha if they misstate the term 'mana whenua'? (Apologies if it was just a typo).

Expand full comment