Paul1977:

 

SaltyNZ:

 

It isn't just about inequality. That's definitely part of it, but also - and another thing HP deny - it is simply the fact that the Māori people never gave up their sovereignty/right to self-determination. To the extent that it is two laws for two people, it is because that is literally what the agreement was. Personally I tend to find that when Te Tiriti rights to consultation are in play the outcomes are most often better protection for the people overall against those would want to exploit everything for maximum short term cash.

 

 

That means you've got a racial divide forever.

 

just as we have a gender divide (Which ALSO needs to be fixed)

Then of course we have "The old boys network" which is another division, created artificially (see white supremacy / Christian Nationalism) to keep the "riff raff" out.

And these ideologies have created some horrific outcomes (WWI officers being of good blood lines , yet utterly incompetent)

OldGeek:

 

The issue of Sovereignty is further complicated by the fact that Māori had no overall collective authority that could cede it.  Every tribe was a law to itself and inter-tribal disputes were settled in the time-honoured Māori way of physical confrontation.  While a number of Chiefs signed the treaty, not all did so, so it is irrational to consider Māori ceded sovereignty.

The British Government acquired colonies by migration supported by military superiority.  In that respect the Treaty of Waitangi was highly unusual and it is clear from what happened in the century that followed it, the British treated Māori as a conquered people that benefitted from being brought into a superior modern world from their stone-age Tribal civilisation.  The Treaty was about as useful as a used car seller views a warrantee they might include to get the sale.  My bet is if you could ask anyone in London that was involved with Governor Hobson how they viewed the TOW they would say it was a negotiated ceding of sovereignty to the British Crown.

 

So each side thought they were right.

 

That last sentence is kind of what I get from it. It's entirely possible each "side" was signing what was essentially a different agreement. But hasn't the modern interpretation essentially said the Crown should be bound by what Māori thought they were agreeing to? That doesn't seem any fairer than saying Māori should be bound by what the Crown thought they were signing.

I don't know where that leaves us moving forward.

gzt: It's ironic that a group that wants less Maori in everyday life keeps repeating their favorite phrase in Maori.

It's sad really. Go to European countries and they are taught multiple languages right from the get go, and at the right age to be learning languages.

It should be compulsory, from day one at school.

You will get those biggest who say "no one in the world speaks Maori, we should be learning French to Mandarin"....well I have said Kia Ora to more people than I have said Bon Jour, and I have been to France 3 times and to Noumea.

And the same will be true for 95% of people who live and stay here.

The Treaty was about as useful as a used car seller views a warrantee they might include to get the sale. My bet is if you could ask anyone in London that was involved with Governor Hobson how they viewed the TOW they would say it was a negotiated ceding of sovereignty to the British Crown. So each side thought they were right.

What is so objectionable about these far-right groups is they collectively have a long history of telling fabricated stories about targetted groups and demographics, which they then position themselves as the saviour of the masses from some imagined moral peril.

Examples include:

Witches and "Satanists" (ie: anyone not in sufficient agreement with their religious superstitions)

Scientists

Other religions

Jewish people. This deserves a separate mention because its not they hate their key Holy Text but rather their continued existence and non-subjugation is seen as a existential threat.

Gay people, and when the world didn't come to an end, they did a switcharoo in their anti rainbow crusade to Trans people

Native peoples

Not all the above apply simultaneously but they all happened at one time or another and while their excesses (by historical standards) are comparatively weak today, we must not forget what their heritage is.

Some of the above just don't work effectively any more so from time to time they have to search around for a new cause and new, more 'acceptable', face.

gzt: David Seymour continues his insane bouncy clown show - “Get back to God,” Seymour told the Herald. He said churches need to stay in their lane and not mix religion with politics.

gzt: Seymour doesn't know the Anglican church in NZ started from the Church of England headed by the Queen? Ministers of the church were intimately involved in the process leading to the treaty signing. It is obvious the present day church ministers consider it a duty to continue to honor the commitments made to congregants. Catholic ministers were also involved in some cases.

Actually, I agree with David on this point.

The church has no moral high ground. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

MichaelNZ: Actually, I agree with David on this point.

The church has no moral high ground. Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

gzt: It is certainly true the Anglican church of NZ has admitted and apologized for it's failings in respect of land held in trust and later sold, and it has entered into reconciliation processes. Seymour could do the same anytime if he wished.

That is a drop in the bucket compared to most of 2,000 years of the church. 

Any and all of their recent stuff [to distance themselves] is self preservation imho.

I will reconsider when they sell what they have and give the proceeds to the less fortunate.

Paul1977:

 

SaltyNZ:

 

It isn't just about inequality. That's definitely part of it, but also - and another thing HP deny - it is simply the fact that the Māori people never gave up their sovereignty/right to self-determination. To the extent that it is two laws for two people, it is because that is literally what the agreement was. Personally I tend to find that when Te Tiriti rights to consultation are in play the outcomes are most often better protection for the people overall against those would want to exploit everything for maximum short term cash.

 

 

That means you've got a racial divide forever.

 

What it actually means is if you want to change things it needs to be to the advantage of both Māori and non-Māori. There needs to be agreement. That’s how treaties work  

What it doesn’t mean is non Māori can unilaterally change the deal in Darth Vader style. 

The irony of the party of property rights trying to remove property rights from Māori is not lost on me. 

gzt: Incorrect. The Church of England with the monarch as its head as its supreme religious authority next to God is approximately 500 years old.

Sort of. The Church of England was the Roman Catholic Church before the English reformation. It is the same organisation with a different name and a few different rules.