DOC and Iwi disappointed by the tramp tramp

Forums › Off topic › DOC and Iwi disappointed by the tramp tramp

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#747051 18-Jan-2013 17:55

ubergeeknz: Also, people don't have the right to not be offended. If they think so then it's them with the problem.

The majority of posters to this thread appear to be mortally offended by only one iwi being mildly offended by one particular Christian recreational group. So I'm not sure where that leaves your argument.

bfginger: But I don't see how jumping on a trampoline in sight of a peak is insensitive to the mountain's mana. Auckland would be full of insults to its volcanic cones.

DOC are charged with managing the resources of the park area. This includes archeological resources and sites of significance to local iwi. DOC does this in cooperation with local iwi. Some of these sites are inappropriate for the performance of some types of recreational activity because their traditional use is quite different or considered sacred for a particular purpose. I realise this is easy to make fun of but have a think about it.

In this instance as far as I can tell there has been no suggestion the group was in an area of this nature and as far as I know there has been no problem raised in a specific sense with the mana of the mountain in relation to this particular activity in that particular place.

Here is the problem: If the group had consulted DOC my guess is DOC would have asked specifically where they planned to do the activity and the group would have said 'somewhere round area x approx on the plain'. DOC would have consulted their maps and made a call to the iwi trust to confirm. If the group planned to be near a sensitive area they would have been asked to move a bit to the left or something and that would have been the end of it. It looks to me like the iwi trust are upset this process did not take place after previously having contact with the group and receiving an apology after the last incident.

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#747056 18-Jan-2013 18:04

dman: I think certain people should "take a hike".... !

Or, tell them to "go jump".....

Seriously, I have read the articles, but can not actually find out how exactly this was culturally insensitive.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

TheMantis

142 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#747057 18-Jan-2013 18:09

If the group planned to be near a sensitive area they would have been asked to move a bit to the left or something and that would have been the end of it. It looks to me like the iwi trust are upset this process did not take place after previously having contact with the group and receiving an apology after the last incident.

Sounds like the group should never have apologised previously and just stuck to their guns. The problem is that the Iwi is always going to find something to complain about, it's what they do. Where the group set up the trampoline is just a bog standard piece of ground with absolutely no chance of upsetting any reasonable person/s. The four corners of the trampoline would have a footprint similar to a person so it's not as if they turfed 150 sqr metres of a rare alpine tussock and ravaged the terrain. If the area was "sacred" then it would be fenced off - DOC do it all the time to protect plants and wildlife.

This group was having a bit of harmless fun, not just for themselves but for other trampers too. I applaud them for doing something unique. That they unintentionally managed to offend the local Iwi is just a free bonus really.

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#747073 18-Jan-2013 18:34

what it most likely comes down to is that the local iwi didn't have a chance to charge their consulation fee.

BTW heaps of people do things that 'offend' my culture but as I have a life I don't get too upset about it

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#747083 18-Jan-2013 19:04

TheMantis: If the area was "sacred" then it would be fenced off -

Like I said before there is no indication yet there was any problem of that nature. But for your own interest you may be interested to know there are many archeological sites and traditional use sites which are perfectly accessible and not marked in any way. Many sites are obvious to people who have studied NZ archeology but other sites much less so.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#747148 18-Jan-2013 21:29

I think in this instance 'the media' had the right approach..... Their last sentence says it all

" On Sunday a French paraglider launched himself from the summit of Mt Taranaki and crash-landed at the North Egmont visitor centre. Ms Poutu said without knowing the exact details of the paraglider incident she couldn't say whether it was culturally appropriate or not."

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#747413 19-Jan-2013 16:49

ubergeeknz:
nickb800: Going against the grain here, but isn't the tramp group a bit silly doing this again knowing first hand the kerfuffle caused by the BBQ incident.

To me their attempt to mitigate it (going to the plateau rather than peak) was a bit pathetic, I suspect they just enjoy the publicity/exposure

No I'm sorry but what they did is not against any written rules or law. Why should they consult with the DOC about it? It's OK to take tents and other camping equipment of any sort. What exactly is different about taking a trampoline? Or a BBQ for that matter?

Initially i thought i can understand the view of doc etc if it is a sacred site but your comment changed my opinion. I wonder at which point it becomes culturally incentive.
If i have a mattress and jump on it?
If I have a have a trampoline like thing to put my mattress on?
If I have a small exercise tramp the same size?

Can anyone explain why from a cultural perspective this is culturally incentive to Maori?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#747416 19-Jan-2013 16:56

gregmcc: what it most likely comes down to is that the local iwi didn't have a chance to charge their consulation fee.

BTW heaps of people do things that 'offend' my culture but as I have a life I don't get too upset about it

It is about having the right balance of respect I think. I would not sit on a table in a maori home / whare because it is culturally incentive. But if I am in a park and am sitting on a table and some Maori come along I am not going to move just incase i offend them, because it is not my culture.

ps i think it is rude for burqa wearing people to expect us to accept their ways when wearing such a thing is culturally incentive to us. I think they should respect our views and don't see why we need to accept them into the country if they are not prepared to do so

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#747419 19-Jan-2013 16:59

qwerty7:
gregmcc: what it most likely comes down to is that the local iwi didn't have a chance to charge their consulation fee.

BTW heaps of people do things that 'offend' my culture but as I have a life I don't get too upset about it

It is about having the right balance of respect I think. I would not sit on a table in a maori home / whare because it is culturally incentive. But if I am in a park and am sitting on a table and some Maori come along I am not going to move just incase i offend them, because it is not my culture.

As in, this is my country too, so therefore this mountain is "mine" and if I want to haul a trampoline up there and have some fun/not litter/etc, i'll do it! (Because guess what, that isn't offensive to MY culture)

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#747426 19-Jan-2013 17:10

The fact is that national parks etc do not belong to you me or anyone else they belong to the nation. Your assertion you can treat anything in them as your property is misguided at best.

Instead of rolling all your perceived 'maori' issues into one and having a bash - look at this specific issue.

Fact: The only thing which has been expressed is unhappiness that this particular recreational group did not contact DOC to check after causing offence last time. Nothing at all has been expressed about this activity or the location of it. It looks for all the world like a relationship problem with one particular group.

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#747433 19-Jan-2013 17:16

gzt: The fact is that national parks etc do not belong to you me or anyone else they belong to the nation. Your assertion you can treat anything in them as your property is misguided at best.

Instead of rolling all your perceived 'maori' issues into one and having a bash - look at this specific issue.

Fact: The only thing which has been expressed is unhappiness that this particular recreational group did not contact DOC to check after causing offence last time. Nothing at all has been expressed about this activity or the location of it. It looks for all the world like a relationship problem with one particular group.

THat's just it, they 'caused offence to a bunch of maori. The national park's don't belong to just maori, they bleong to everyone, which includes us white people, who don't have the same cultural hang ups as this maori iwi does.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#747435 19-Jan-2013 17:21

Why you chose to put skin colour into that comment is completely beyond me.

Why are you so offended that this particular iwi trust has taken offence at this particular group?

kyhwana2

2566 posts

Uber Geek

#747436 19-Jan-2013 17:22

gzt: Why you chose to put skin colour in that comment is completely beyond me.

Why are you so offended that this particular iwi trust has taken offence at this particular group?

Because it's a bunch of spiritual bullcrap. Of course, I don't have the right to be not offended by them being offended, just like they don't have the right to be not offended at something someone's done in a national park ;)

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#747452 19-Jan-2013 17:40

Since nothing spiritual or specific has been raised about this incident I can only assume you are referring to the formal eating on top of the mountain incident which was organised by the same group. Presumably the group was unaware of the sensitivity. The group apologised.

A lot of NZ'ers choose to respect these conventions freely. Just like any observance of respect for other peoples beliefs - the only thing that offended parties can do is express their disappointment or discomfort.

For instance: war memorials have 'spiritual meaning' (for want of a better expression) for many people. People do get upset when activities take place there which they consider inappropriate for one reason or another.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#747478 19-Jan-2013 18:23

gzt: Since nothing spiritual or specific has been raised about this incident...

From the article:

Both Taranaki iwi and the Department of Conservation are disappointed a party of trampers assembled a trampoline on the Pouakai Plateau, given the same group was told off in 2011 for having a barbecue on the summit of Mt Taranaki.In Maori culture the head of important mountains is regarded as tapu or sacred.

The Pouakai Range was a culturally sensitive site because it was a maunga (mountain) in its own right - as was the Kaitake Range, she said.

Taranaki Iwi Trust would prefer to be notified if potentially culturally insensitive activities were carried out in the park, she said.

Why was the iwi disappointed with the party assembling a trampoline?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4