Saturday, February 6, 2010

Andrei The obligatory Waitangi day post

So today is Waitangi day - you would think it is our equivalent to the American fourth of July from the hoop-la.

It could have been, still perhaps could be but the way it is it isn't about Nationhood at all.

It is has become about who gets the biggest slice of the pie and about past grievances some real but most imagined conjured up to invoke white liberal guilt in the furtherance of wealth transfer to the Iwi, Maori aristocrats.

Make no mistake about it, the seabed and foreshore thing isn't about the customary right of Maori to gather pipis - its about control of Oil and Gas that may lie under the sea, its about control of New Zealand's fisheries by an unelected, self appointed group claiming, perhaps with some merit, but perhaps not, historical descent from the Maori aristocracy of 150 years ago.

And don't think for a second that if this wealth transfer is successful that it will help either race relations in this country or more importantly the significant Maori underclass because it wont.

Waitangi day hasn't even got a long pedigree as a public holiday, it has only held this status since 1973 when it was officially recognized as such under the name "New Zealand day". It only reverted to its present name in 1976.

It would be great if today really celebrated the birth of a Nation, a new people born from a melting pot of races who celebrate justice and honor and promote the equality of all people regardless of birth.

But it doesn't, its just another opportunity for posturing and maneuvering by those who would rule over us - both Maori and Pakeha.

18 comment(s):

KG said...

"It would be great if today really celebrated the birth of a Nation, a new people born from a melting pot of races who celebrate justice and honor and promote the equality of all people regardless of birth."

Yes, it would. What a pity it's not--and at this rate never will be.

ZenTiger said...

Spending over a dozen years in Australia, and I never failed to be impressed with the Australia day celebrations. Many a year, we were down at the harbour with friends having a picnic, surrounded by thousands settling in for the spectacular (understatement) fireworks show that marked the event.

A fantastic vibe, and the spirit of a nation looking forward.

We don't have that here in NZ. We can't even fly a flag without it turning into a discussion of dumping the union jack or flying the Maori flag instead.

Being a public holiday, the malls opened 30 minutes later than usual.

Madeleine said...

This day is fraught with frustrations but to use a tired analogy it really is an example of the swinging pendulum. Go back further than 30 years or so in our history and you will find all sorts of injustices that were, frankly, wrong. Fast Forward to recent history and you'll find all manner of injustices that are likewise wrong.

We still do not have it right in this country. We need to keep trying but we're not going to get anywhere while people who cannot read a legal document think they have something to say on the matter. I am not remotely aiming these comments at anyone here - I'm simply reflecting on the idiotic comments made on the TV program I was part of that aired this morning on TV One.

KG said...

"We need to keep trying but we're not going to get anywhere while people who cannot read a legal document think they have something to say on the matter."

I'll keep it polite, as I'm wont to do when a guest in somebody else's space:
That's the kind of arrogant claptrap that's used to shut down dissenting viewpoints and stifle debate.
The subject of the treaty and it's application to modern NZ isn't the preserve of of those who can "read a legal document". (if that were the case then the vast majority of Maori would be disqualified in any case. How would that work?)

The sooner lawyers and judges and the rest of the corrupt, self-serving gravy-train get their pompous elitest noses out of the whole business, the better.
The great unwashed mass of peasants (you must have heard of them Madeleine--they're the ones who pay the bills) have a pretty good nose for detecting when they're being bullshitted, ripped off and patronized.

The solution to the whole thing is very, very simple:
ONE LAW FOR ALL>

ropata said...

KG, I think Madeleine was referring to Maori stretching the terms of the Treaty far beyond its original intent. The eternal grievance industry is a strange extrapolation from a fairly simple one page document.

KG said...

Thanks, Ropata but I see no evidence of that in Madeleine's comment.

ropata said...

True KG, my statement is based on her televised contributions in the recent Treaty debate.
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/02/view-marae-the-great-waitangi-debate-here.html

KG said...

Again, thanks Ropata but I don't watch television and I'm utterly uninterested in what M. has to say concerning the treaty. In fact, what any lawyer or wannabe lawyer has to say.
Lawyers are part of the problem, not the solution.

ropata said...

Cool, an anarchist in our midst! However, I think you'd enjoy what Tim Wikiriwhi had to say. Cheers

KG said...

Wow! Bravo Tim! Thanks for that Ropata. :)

Madeleine said...

"The subject of the treaty and it's application to modern NZ isn't the preserve of of those who can "read a legal document"."

As I pointed out KG, my statement was qualified by "the idiotic comments made on the TV program I was part of that aired this morning on TV One."

Further, I did not limit the conversation to lawyers, I limited it to people who cannot get that it is a Treaty, not some living document or a bunch of principles of a starting point for conversation. It is a treaty, that makes it a legal document with a limited range of meaning that can be extrapolated from it. On the TV program I was on there were people saying it could be used to justify race based seats, that it could be used to justify the confiscation of property (tax dollars) to fund something if that thing was "beautiful."

Anyone who thinks you can re-interpret a document with a finate range of meanings into any thing goes does not understand what a Treaty is, so is talking through a hole in their head, so should not be a position of policy making.

I was arguing for "ONE LAW FOR ALL" which you'd have known if you hadn't bigotedly assumed and if you had bothered to find out what I had to say and if you were not in the practice of piegeon-holing people.

How do you and I disagree?

I'd say we probably don't on the Treaty but we do on what amounts to "the kind of arrogant claptrap that's used to shut down dissenting viewpoints and stifle debate." We disagree on this because I would never write this:
"I'm utterly uninterested in what X has to say concerning the treaty. In fact, what any [insert profession] or wannabe [insert profession] has to say.
[insert profession] are part of the problem, not the solution."

Where you and I differ is that I judge people on the merits of their argument, the content of their character and not on who they are or what profession they aspire to.

Madeleine said...

Oh, and btw, we're posting Tim Wikiriwhi's entire commentary on the debate on MandM today. He sent it to us because he liked what we had to say and because PC refused to post all of it.

At MandM we're about discussing all viewpoints and not about stifling debate.

KG said...

"Where you and I differ is that I judge people on the merits of their argument, the content of their character and not on who they are or what profession they aspire to."

Where you and I differ is that I hold lawyers in general in utter contempt.

Madeleine said...

That says it all really KG.

I don't mind being judged or disagreed with for my opinion but on the basis of the group within society that I belong to?
- You have got to be kidding.

One wonders then why you pretend to be against shutting down viewpoints.

KG said...

Nope, not kidding at all.
I "pretend" to be against shutting down viewpoints? Really? I'm guilty of a lot of things but pretending isn't one of them. And which viewpoints do you have in mind?

KG said...

There are anarchist groups. There are paedophile groups. There are crime syndicates and rape gangs...
So, judging people by their membership of a group is not necessarily wrong.
Not that I equate lawyers with those kinds of people, but there have been and are sufficient numbers of bent lawyers for me to regard all of them with a jaundiced eye until I know better of an individual.
I've personally experienced unprincipled, thieving lawyers on more than one occasion and I've also tried to obtain some redress through the body that supposedly regulates their behaviour. To be met with cover-ups and obstruction.
So I'll keep my opinion of lawyers as a professional class, thanks. It's safer that way.

Madeleine said...

But KG you know me to a certain point at least. That's what cut.

If it had been someone from the Standard or Red Alert or the Hand Mirror then I'd have gone 'ok, what do you expect...'

KG said...

Ok Madeleine, I've had all night at work to think about this and I regret causing you offence. My opinion of lawyers in general remains as it was when I made the comments, but perhaps I should have made clearer something I thought obvious--that there are almost always exceptions. (which is why my words "in general" were italicised)
Pax

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.