One Peter Dey appears frequently in your columns with grossly false statements about our colonial past. His latest outrageous claim (The Weekend Sun, page 47, May 5, 2017) is that 'more than $30 billion of land [was] wrongly taken [from Maoris], with no allowance made for lost income”.
The truth is that once the tribes learnt that they could live by agriculture, much land became useless to them and they willingly exchanged it for European material goods (taonga). By 1840 they had freely sold almost all the South Island and the North south of a line from Castlepoint to the Mokau River mouth and much that was north of it as well. Only a few per cent of the land was fairly confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been warned it would be.
This land, said to be worth $30 billion today, is in nothing remotely like the condition in which it was originally sold; its value almost entirely owed to the hard work and capital of early settlers and their descendants.
Today, 5.6 per cent of the land is held under Maori title, but also with many Maori owners of freehold land under individual title. Ahuwhenua Trophy winners, Dean and Kristen Nikora (2008) and Barton and Nukuhia Hadfield (2015) will be amongst them.
Dream on, Mr Dey.
B Moon, Nelson.
24-Apr 20:00
Remember road safety this ANZAC Day
24-Apr 19:00
$1.35m grant to study lion-like jumping spiders
24-Apr 18:00
99-year-old veteran to lead Anzac procession
24-Apr 17:00
Ōpōtiki ANZAC parade and Civic commemorations
24-Apr 16:00
ANZAC anticipations and a chilly change
24-Apr 15:00
Anger over proposed rating change
24-Apr 14:00
Fish dealer fined over inaccurate sales records
24-Apr 13:00
Police seek information after Four Square burglary
24-Apr 12:15
State Highway 2, Minden, is congested after crash
24-Apr 12:08
Two vehicle collision on Totara Street
24-Apr 11:45
Tauranga homeowners face 7 per cent rates rise
24-Apr 10:45
Redesigned intersections planned for Arataki
COMPETITIONS
OPINION POLL
Where should Tauranga CBD's permanent bus stop be located?
LATEST JOBS
107 comments
Gross distortions by B. Moon.
Posted on 19-05-2017 13:57 | By R. Bell
When someones land is obtained by grossly immoral means and compensation is paid 100+ yrs later, the value must be estimated at the time of payment. Using the word taonga for such " treasures" as pots, pans blankets and guns, has been totally discredited by the United Nations, as have such transactions. Maori receive less than 1% of true value. Pre 1840 land transactions are irrelevant. Even the British recognised that immorality and introduced Pre emption into the treaty. The Queen has apologised for the illegal invasion and confiscation of land. Dream on Mr Moon, you too have been discredited. Robin Bell.
For the information of Anbob
Posted on 20-05-2017 08:45 | By Peter Dey
Tauranga Maori received $50 million compensation for land worth over $500 million undeveloped now, That is less than 10 per cent compensation. All Treaty settlements have followed a similar percentage. Maori have received a total of about $3 billion in settlements. That is 10 per cent of $30 billion, the value of the land taken.
B. Moon needs to read the history,
Posted on 20-05-2017 12:24 | By R. Bell
of the Ahuwhenua Trophy. Introduced by Sir Apirana Ngata and Lord Bledisloe in 1933. Its purpose to encourage Maori land development which had been decimated during colonisation of N.Z. BY FORCED SALES and lack of opportunity and access to development funding. The more Mr Moon ignores factual evidence, the more ridiculous his arguments become. Robin Bell.
Howling at the Moon
Posted on 23-05-2017 20:30 | By tutae.kuri
Dey and Bell were certainly howling at the Moon over his critique . Neither of them is prepared to give credit to the fact that Government has been trying to make some gesture of satisfaction to Maori for past perceived wrongs. They are both prepared to put down Bruce Moon, who has been a recognised scholar on the subject for a long time. The fact that his research does not fit with their ideas, is the root of their objections, which should be viewed with caution and sometimes a bit of salt.
Maori were denied a part in the hard work
Posted on 23-05-2017 20:51 | By Peter Dey
B.Moon's assumption that if Maori had retained their land they would not have worked equally as hard as Pakeha settlers and shared equally in the rewards is simple nonsense. By having their land forcibly taken Maori were excluded from all the prosperity that followed. Fair compensation would return the land, or the value of it, at the time of compensation. What happened previously is irrelevant.
t.k is wrong about B.Moon's recognised scholarship
Posted on 24-05-2017 08:19 | By Peter Dey
Reputable historians disagree with B.Moon over land being fairly confiscated. That is why we have had Treaty settlements. The land was not fairly confiscated. It was stolen by Government legalised fraud.
Howling at the Moon again
Posted on 24-05-2017 09:09 | By tutae.kuri
Mr Dey is being disingenuous here. There were land confiscations as a result of rebellion against the Crown. Mr Dey knows that this was in line with rules of the day . Sir Apirana Ngata acknowledged this state of affairs in the 1920's. Land loss was understood and suffered by tribes who were dispossessed by losing out in tribal wars prior to 1840. So, what was different in the treatment meted out by the Crown ? Maori had agreed to British rule, had they not?Mr Dey also knows that more than half this land was returned to the owners subsequently. There was no particular need to do that.Much of the land sold was cleared of bush and logs milled. Maori labour contributed greatly to this and wages earned uplifted their positions.Meanwhile Maori Land languished, undeveloped. Whose fault is that, other than the owners ?
Moon shine tutae,
Posted on 24-05-2017 09:38 | By R. Bell
In a recent "critique" the highly regarded alternative "historian" Mr Moon claimed Maori were inherently dishonest. There are no "perceived " wrongs tutae they are as real as dog poop. You defend Moon which is admirable but misplaced, as is your own "critique" Dey and Bell are well proven supporters of the efforts that both the Government AND Maori make, to rectify those wrongs. As for being a recognised scholar, that's a joke, right. perhaps a reference to the recognition would help. Robin Bell.
B.Moon is not a recognised scholar on Treaty issues
Posted on 24-05-2017 10:02 | By Peter Dey
B.Moon has co-authored books about Treaty issues, but his views are not shared by reputable scholars. We have now had the Treaty of Waitangi Act and the Waitangi Tribunal for 40 years. B.Moon is opposed to them, but no reputable scholar supports his view in this. B.Moon represents a narrow pro-Pakeha view that seems to deny facts that contradict him. He has very high academic qualifications in physics and computing, but not in history or Treaty issues.
The Government does deserve credit but Maori are not greedy
Posted on 24-05-2017 10:07 | By Peter Dey
t.k, I have not said that the Government is doing nothing about past wrongs. They are doing something about past wrongs, but B.Johnson accused Maori of being greedy. I simply pointed out that compensation to Maori was different from accepted fair compensation, and that Maori have received less that 10% of fair compensation.
Not disingenuous, just following reputable scholars
Posted on 24-05-2017 11:51 | By Peter Dey
t.k is putting a very minority point of view when he says that the Government was justified in taking Maori land because it was the Maori custom of the day and Maori were warned before the land was taken. The whole point of the Treaty of Waitangi was that Maori law no longer applied. Quoting Apirana Ngata means nothing. On this issue he was speaking as a member of the conservative government of the time, and not the general point of view of Maori at all. Confiscation clearly breached the Treaty and reputable historians now recognise this. B.Moon is out of step with reputable historians. The confiscation laws and the use of the British army to provoke conflict were all manufactured means to steal land from Maori. Reputable historians now recognise this. B.Moon is not a reputable historian.
Howling at tutae,
Posted on 24-05-2017 12:05 | By R. Bell
who very conveniently totally ignores fact. The land wars were bought about by the refusal of Maori to sell their land. The Queen publically apologised on behalf of the crown for its abuses. Maori land languished for many reasons, including ( a ) multiple ownership, imposed by Pakeha law, ( b ) the inability to get investment money, caused by multiple ownership, and the refusal of Pakeha owned banks to risk investment. ( c ) numerous Acts of Pakeha dominated parliament, now recognised as immoral, designed to "relieve "Maori of their land. One example tutae, the Maori lands Act 1972 known to all as the Land Grab Act, that started the current process of healing. Robin Bell.
Keith Sinclair disagrees with B.Moon
Posted on 24-05-2017 12:39 | By Peter Dey
The History of New Zealand by Keith Sinclair written in 1959 makes it clear that the Maori land confiscations were wrong. Only a pro-Pakeha minority now believes that the confiscations were justified. The point is that if reputable historians agree that the confiscations were wrong, then it is fair to discuss what fair compensation should be. Clearly the compensation so far has been way less than fair. This is because Governments have believed that Pakeha voters would object to large fair compensation. The fact that allowance for over 100 years of lost income has never been allowed for in Treaty settlements is an astonishing pro-Pakeha bias. Fair compensation could be staggered over 20 years of payments, but pro-Pakeha protesters are in denial if they believe that current Treaty settlements are fair compensation.
What happened in Tauranga
Posted on 24-05-2017 12:50 | By Peter Dey
t.k needs to consider the situation in Tauranga before land was confiscated. The fighting started when the British army attacked the Gate Pa at Pukehinahina. The British army started the fighting. This is an historical fact. Maori had 20,000 hectares of land confiscated for defending their own land. They have received $50 million dollars compensation. The 20,000 hectares of land confiscated has a current value, undeveloped, of over $500 million. The land confiscated was the best land. Maori were left with the least productive land. When B.Moon claims that the value of the land came from hard work he completely denies the fact that all of the best land was taken from Maori. Land was even taken from Maori who took no part in any fighting simply because it was the good land.
To add
Posted on 24-05-2017 14:18 | By Anbob
My thoughts are they are all reputable scholars, it just depends whether you agree with their perspective. I wouldnt say the anti-treaty lobbyists are a minority or the cause of the issues are greedy Pakeha or greedy Maori. Its the ambiguity of both the Treaty and NZ history. The only way to assess support for TOW and the WT or otherwise would be a referendum. Politicians are too scared to have that. The outcome of the 2014 constitutional debate indicates most NZers want to remove the Treaty from any constitution. Its time to move forward from historical events. The Limitation Act allows 60 years to make a claim of land fraud. To have a democracy there must be one law of all (no privileged minority). In saying this, I am all for resources being put into raising the standard of any under privileged group, until there is equality.
Keith Sinclair's history was the most respected book of his time
Posted on 24-05-2017 14:21 | By Peter Dey
Keith Sinclair's History of New Zealand was the most widely respected book on New Zealand history for many years from 1959. The fact that even in 1959 it was clear to Keith Sinclair that confiscation was wrong shows how out of touch B>Moon is.
Anbob, they are not all reputable historians
Posted on 24-05-2017 15:39 | By Peter Dey
Reputable historians write peer reviewed material that is factually correct. Writers like B.Moon simply ignore facts that contradict their beliefs. In the book "Twisting the Treaty" B.Moon claims that there is no official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. This is factually wrong. The English version of the Treaty of Waitangi that is in New Zealand law in the Treaty of Waitangi Act is there because reputable historians have verified that it is the same as the version that Governor Hobson sent officially to Britain on 5-6 February 1840. B.Moon denies this. He is a discredited historian. He is preaching misinformation.
Anbob, educated politicians support current race relations
Posted on 24-05-2017 15:51 | By Peter Dey
It is quite probable that a large section of the community is supportive of the narrow pro-Pakeha views of B.Moon and B.Johnson, but no reputable politician is going to go down in history as having tried to stop New Zealand's honouring of the Treaty and our progress towards a more tolerant society that values good race relations. Our younger generation are learning a greater knowledge of Maori culture, and it is gradually becoming more accepted. What B.Moon is preaching is a retention of what was bad in our past. We are evolving to a better race relations future that B.Moon denies.
Your preaching to the converted Anbob,
Posted on 24-05-2017 16:49 | By R. Bell
anti treaty lobbyists pay no attention to fact. B. Moon can never claim to be a credible historian. He is not peer reviewed and has a clear bias toward his own version of history. There is a "referendum " every three years not once has a political party advocating removal of the treaty gained more than - 1%. of votes. The 2014 constitutional review was a discussion nothing more, nothing less. As usual Anbob your overview is biased. Robin Bell.
messrs Dey & Bell
Posted on 24-05-2017 17:08 | By tutae.kuri
with respect , historians are only reputable if they support your world view guys.At this time in history, the Maori interests are very well organised and orchestrated. Maori views have infiltrated much of the bureaucracy and in particular, the health and educational systems. The Young are being channeled into acceptance of separatism as far as I can see.The revisionists are continuing to rewrite the country's history from a Maori perspective with the British being the bad guys.The Politicians are being led by their respective noses and don't give a toss as long as they stay on the treasury benches.I tend to agree with Anbob , after the historical claims are settled, WT should be disbanded and all the population reverting to equal rights in law.
Biased
Posted on 24-05-2017 17:13 | By Anbob
As is your overview Robin. That was my point.
Universities and qualified historians decide who is reputable
Posted on 24-05-2017 18:36 | By Peter Dey
t.k, universities grant degrees to people who have proven that they are knowledgeable and skilled in the academic study of history. A person becomes a reputable historian if their peers convey that judgement upon them. Academically qualified historians have not judged B.Moon to be a credible historian. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. B.Moon simply writes material that disagrees with the beliefs of academically qualified historians. He is not an academically qualified historian himself, and he writes factually incorrect historical statements.
tk you misunderstand separatism
Posted on 24-05-2017 20:53 | By Peter Dey
Separatism would be Maori having their own separate communities with their own separate political and community organisation. That is not what Maori ever suggest as something that they want. What Pakeha Treaty opponents object to and call separatism is really just an increase in the presence of Maori culture in mainstream New Zealand. That is not separating Maori out from everyone else. It is increasing the quality of our bi-cultural and multi-cultural society. It is adding to the richness of society. Pakeha who do not like this are really wanting to keep society as mono-culturally Pakeha as they can. Putting more Maori culture into society helps race relations. What Treaty opponents preach against and call separatism is a futile attempt to hang on to the past. We are evolving into a socially richer bi-cultural society, with greater racial harmony.
Kia ora R.Bell
Posted on 24-05-2017 22:55 | By Peter Dey
Kia ora R.Bell. I am enjoying your comments. This is a great opportunity to examine some hard core beliefs.
tk we already have equal rights
Posted on 25-05-2017 09:09 | By Peter Dey
Treaty opponents who claim that Maori have greater rights than non-Maori need to acknowledge that Maori were discriminated against by past Governments for over 100 years. The Waitangi Tribunal is a means to avoid further anti-Maori Government discrimination. Actions that help to deal with the results of anti-Maori Government discrimination are not greater rights. If Maori were getting greater rights they would be better off than everybody else, which they clearly are not. Treaty opponents who complain about greater rights for Maori seem to want New Zealand to be as mono-culturally Pakeha as possible. Having more Maori culture in mainstream society is not greater rights for Maori.
Your language says it all tutae,
Posted on 25-05-2017 09:22 | By R. Bell
you use the word infiltrate to describe Maori participation in Gov't and bureaucracy. Infiltrate carries the dictionary meaning, enter or gain access surreptitiously, to invade. You clearly carry a racial bias. Therefore you can not be objective on this or any other subject involving our founding partners. Peter sums up better than I the charge of separatism you level against Maori. Robin Bell.
Kia ora Peter,
Posted on 25-05-2017 09:56 | By R. Bell
I agree, core belief is a real problem when it discriminates. My hard core belief is that people like B.Moon attempt to destroy Maori mana and in the process destroy there own. Cheers Robin Bell.
Peter, we all have different beliefs, here are mine
Posted on 25-05-2017 11:16 | By Anbob
No one objects to Maori culture adding richness to society, or Maori having a fair say in society. As stated previously I am all for equality, but, against race based privilege. A 50% say when Maori make up 15% of the population, Maori seats in parliament, unelected seats on council, race based rights in law, (e.g the Limitation Act, extra consultation rights in RMA amendment) ownership of riverbeds/lake beds, are all examples of privilege. For society to exist you need to a set of rules that the population agree/adhere to. Different rules for different sectors of society (privilege) based on race is separatism, it results in tribalism, and will lead to a breakdown in society, history has proven it never works. Separatist aspirations doesnt endear Maori culture to non-Maori. For Maori culture to be embraced it cannot be forced. I dont believe separatism is misunderstood.
Respect Mr Bell
Posted on 25-05-2017 12:05 | By tutae.kuri
I will treat you with respect, however, I expect the same in return! I have a university education Mr Dey and understand full the positives and limitations of the academics therein. I have also contracted research with them and have found (sometimes) that their findings coincide with the expectations of those who pay them.My family arrived in Taranaki Christmas 1840, there were some on the other side, in Wellington from around 1835.There is quite a bit of written evidence with us, particularly , from Taranaki. One branch of the family was extinguished in an unprovoked attack while tending the garden . Their writings suggest that on arrival, much of Taranaki was abandoned as a result of the Musket wars and Maori started coming back when they figured it was safe. Will write a bit more later.
Anbob, inherited rights are accepted privilege
Posted on 25-05-2017 12:49 | By Peter Dey
There are plenty of people who have inherited property rights to areas like the foreshore. Maori have inherited rights to forests, rivers, and lakes that they never gave up. Governments now recognise this. These rights were denied by Government decisions. The RMA is simply a Government attempt to find a compromise between returning full rights to Maori or doing nothing and being criticised by the international community for being racist. New Zealand Governments do not want to be seen internationally as racist. Robert Muldoon went down that track and New Zealand was embarrassed.
tk, if you have a university degree why support B.Moon?
Posted on 25-05-2017 12:52 | By Peter Dey
B.Moon writes material that disagrees with properly qualified academics. He writes factually wrong material. He is not a credible source of information.
Anbob, your views are genuine, but B.Moon's writing is not
Posted on 25-05-2017 13:22 | By Peter Dey
My concern with B.Moon is that he writes propaganda. He has what seems almost like a religious faith. He has faith in his belief that Maori are getting extra privileges and he writes only what supports that point of view. He seems to blithely ignore facts that show that what he is writing is wrong. I have the same concern about Don Brash, son of a religious minister, and B.Johnson. These people have an unbalanced narrow point of view that simply ignores inconvenient facts.
Peter, my final thougths
Posted on 25-05-2017 13:52 | By Anbob
The government amended the RMA as a tradeoff with a minor party not to lose power, as have been a lot of government decisions in the past. The Treaty is so ambiguous all viewpoints today are based on someones interpretation. For every academic your read with one view there is another with an opposite view point. There always has been opposite views starting with Chief Justice Pendergrast. As T.K said it depends on who is funding the research, thats why the fishing industry (for example) have their own scientists. I dont think you can complete rubbish any article just because it doesnt fit your viewpoint. It doesnt matter how you justify privilege, it is still privilege and will end in disaster. Might not be in our lifetime, but I for one dont want it in my childrens lifetime either. People need to be careful what they wish for.
Respect? tutai,
Posted on 25-05-2017 13:53 | By R. Bell
that's a joke right. how can you expect any respect, when you choose a pseudonym that suggests you think this subject is dog poop. University education is no guarantee of intelligence on all subjects. Sadly you prove that. Your family history is possibly worth some respect, who knows? I find it fascinating that you call on your ancestors for support, yet deny the same privilege to Maori through your support for Moon. As for treating me with respect tutae, forget it I thrive on insult from people who show no respect to others. Robin Bell.
rocko
Posted on 25-05-2017 14:38 | By Rocko
Bruce Moon is someone worth listening to concerning our Real History unlike the years of revised history rubbish we have been subjected to by Peter Dey.
Qualified Academics
Posted on 25-05-2017 15:15 | By tutae.kuri
Mr Dey ,You did not take up my reference to the findings of some academics. There are times when the research conducted by University Academics toe the party line or they are out of a job. I am sorry if that does not suit you.The re emergence of the final draft of the ToW did not suit some academics whose work revolved around their own ideas of what may have happened 6 February 1840. There has been a concerted effort to ignore that Draft, despite the fact that it rests in the National Archives.All research is subject to reassessment as you well know. The pieces highlighted suit the dogma of the times. These days Maori suggest that the ToW is a partnership and I cannot see reference to that in the Document. Treaty lobbyists pay no attention to fact. Both sides of the coin ?
R Bell
Posted on 25-05-2017 16:07 | By tutae.kuri
you need to debate the points. Resorting to insults signifies loss of argument sir. FYI As a youngster we lived near and enjoyed swimming in the Tutaekuri River. I am unlikely to address you again.
t.k, the Littlewood draft was not Hobson's official document
Posted on 25-05-2017 16:26 | By Peter Dey
The Littlewood Treaty document seems clearly to be the final English draft used to translate the Treaty into Maori, but it is not an accurate translation of the Maori Treaty either. There is only one official English version of the Treaty sent by Governor Hobson to Britain on 5-6 February 1840, and that is the one copied into the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The existence of the Littlewood draft has changed nothing. There is no mention of partnership in a marriage agreement, but marriage is a partnership. The Treaty of Waitangi is a partnership because it requires Maori and the Government to work together. That does not need stating in the Treaty.
Rocko, I am not presenting misinformation as fact
Posted on 25-05-2017 16:31 | By Peter Dey
Rocko may object to what is being written here, but it is an excellent opportunity for unbiased people to see that writers like B.Moon are misinforming us, and that a great deal that Treaty opponents write is selective information designed to mislead gullible people. Most ordinary people prefer to know the truth about an issue.
Rocko, tell us what revised history rubbish you have read here
Posted on 25-05-2017 16:37 | By Peter Dey
Rocko, what you think is revised history rubbish is more likely to be the truth according to verifiable facts. Highly reputable historian, Keith Sinclair, could see in 1959 that the Maori land confiscations were wrong. Something is wrong with B.Moon's thinking if he still does not realise this.
Dey and Bell make a fool of themselves
Posted on 25-05-2017 17:19 | By NZer
They think the general public is ignorant when clearly they are not. Funny how when someone's opinion differes from Deys or Bells they are "uniformed" or "unreputable". Its allways everybody else's fault that Maori cant seem to suceed but if an Maori do suceed then it is never everybody else that helped. This one eyed view certainly lowers their mana amoung the maori i know who are embarrassed by these two gentlemen. Like a very good maori friend once said to me, if a maori or any other person wants to suceed in this country all they have to do is to decide to be sucessful. Lots of Maori go to Aussie and other countries where no extra help is given and are very successful because they cannot blame Pakeha or anyone else if they fail. Only in Nz can they think they can get away with that crap...
tk, one immoral researcher does not mean the system is wrong
Posted on 25-05-2017 17:25 | By Peter Dey
It is absolutely possible that a researcher has been guilty of changing their findings to suit whoever is paying them, but that does not make the system wrong. Nobody has a better system that would be accepted by genuine researchers. Every system: lawyers, teachers, doctors, politicians, engineers, tradesman, businessmen has had people being immoral. That does not make any of these systems wrong.
NZer, you criticise for something that was never said
Posted on 25-05-2017 18:42 | By Peter Dey
NZer, I have not discussed individual Maori success or otherwise here. The fact that you criticise me for this makes your comment nonsense. You are giving your Maori friends wrong information. The main point I am making here is that Maori are not greedy, as B.Johnson claimed. I say this because Treaty settlements have returned less than 10 per cent compensation. Governments have agreed that Maori were robbed of their land. I am simply pointing out that accepting less than 10 per cent compensation is not greedy and more than outweighs all the favouritism that Treaty opponents bring up. I also pointed out that Maori would have shared in all the hard work and benefits that B.Moon mentioned if they had not had their land confiscated.
NZer, Maori that I talk to disagree with you
Posted on 25-05-2017 18:58 | By Peter Dey
NZer, Maori that I talk to do not like reading what they see as unjustified criticism from people like B.Johnson and B.Moon. They say they are happy for me, as a Pakeha, to be replying to other Pakeha when misinformed or prejudiced comments are made. If your Maori friends say that they are happy to be continually put down by prejudiced Pakeha writers, then that is their right, but there is absolutely no reason for any Maori to be embarrassed when I reply to Pakeha writers who seem to be misinformed and prejudiced. I never make the first comment. I only ever write in reply. If there were no misinformed Pakeha writers I would write nothing.
Qualified Academics again Mr Dey
Posted on 25-05-2017 20:05 | By tutae.kuri
You have your own beliefs Mr Dey but there is a degree of looking on through rose tinted spectacles. I have been around for a long time and am not talking isolated cases of immorality. Apart from what goes on in academia,I know of several large legal firms and large commercial operations who pay lip service to current ToW philosophy in order to deal with Iwi Accounts. The owners and managers privately rail against the situation. This sort of situation is corrosive .I note that none of you have quoted Ruth Ross who was the noted expert on ToW matters. Unfortunately she has passed away but is no doubt turning uncomfortably . I am sure that she would have decried the current state of affairs in this country.
Many thanks tutae, BUT
Posted on 26-05-2017 09:26 | By R. Bell
before you kick me unceremoniously into touch, I would take the opportunity to support Peter in his rebuttal of your assumptions. The so-called final draft of the treaty is an unsigned, undated document. No contract compact or treaty is valid unless verified in those ways. It has novelty value only. You reference University Academics in general who "toe the party line" yet you do not level the same criticism at B.Moon, D. Round and other non historian academics, why? Anbob claims Justice Pendergrast expressed a view of ambiguity in regard to the treaty, absolute rubbish. He declared the treaty a nullity, based on his view that as a primitive race of savages Maori could not possibly sign a treaty. Overturned by the privy council. Robin Bell.
Peter
Posted on 26-05-2017 13:12 | By NZer
i have not given my Maori mates any information. Like all other people they are capable of finding out things for themselves. To say things that happened hundreds of years ogo is effecting Maori now just shows how backward looking some Maori are. My Maori mates agree with me that things that happened this long ago are just being used as excuses for lazyness. They tell me that Maori are not handicapped in anyway and have the same oppertunities or more than any other Kiwi to suceed in this country and my mates are actually doing this to no suprise from me. They tell me this country will never be one so as long as gentlemen like you two keep looking to the past instead of looking to the future.
Robin, only replying because you misquoted me. Last post on subject!
Posted on 26-05-2017 14:14 | By Anbob
I never quoted Pendergrast CJ saying the treaty was ambiguous. He was an example of a learned writer, with an opposite view to pro-Treaty writers. However, the ambiguity of the treaty is obvious from the debates today. There were several versions of TOW, the English version translated from an unwritten language. There is debate on which is the correct version, the wording, the interpretation, the extent of Art. 3, and the list goes on! The draft TOW shows intention. A treaty is signed between two States, surely any claims should be directed at England, afterall the British signed the Treaty. If it is not a treaty now, then it is a contract. If it is a contract then the four corners law applies and it is not binding on third parties. Peter, surely if compensation laws apply then the time limitation laws should too.
tk, all skilled occupations have qualifications
Posted on 26-05-2017 15:43 | By Peter Dey
tk you say that historians are only reputable if they support my world view. All skilled occupations have required qualifications. An unqualified doctor cannot practice. The same goes for lawyers, plumbers and a hundred other occupations. Professional historians have to be qualified to get a job. Anybody can write about history, but B.Moon, who is not a qualified professional historian, disagrees with the views of professional historians, and writes factually wrong information in the process. It seems quite clear that some historians can be labelled reputable, and B.Moon is not one of them. The fact that I disagree with him has nothing to do with him not being reputable.
NZ, it seems your Maori mates are more Pakeha than Maori
Posted on 26-05-2017 17:51 | By Peter Dey
NZre, your Maori mates seem to be badly informed over their situation. The Maori leaders who lead the struggle for the survival of the Maori language and Maori culture have been the same ones who led the struggle to get Treaty settlements for stolen Maori land. These leaders, like those of Tainui and Ngai Tahu struggled to get justice for past wrongs because they wanted to leave a better legacy for their children. They are using the settlements they have gained for the benefit of future generations. It seems that your Maori mates are like you and have no connection with the forward looking Maori community.
Anbob, the only TOW confusion is from Treaty protesters
Posted on 26-05-2017 18:14 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, there is no confusion amongst informed people over the Treaty of Waitangi. That is why it is helpful to debate the issue here so misinformation can be corrected. Treaty protesters raise many issues, and in the process they make it seem as though there is doubt, but the issues they raise have no substance, The New Zealand Parliament has supreme political power in New Zealand and they have maintained for the past 40 years that all of the issues that you raise are of no consequence. Governor Hobson's original copy of the English version of the Treaty is item CO209/6 in the British Colonial Archives. It is the same as in the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Only the ignorant claim that there is confusion.
Peter
Posted on 27-05-2017 09:15 | By NZer
So now you are saying that Maori who dont agree with you are not Maori? Unbelievable. Clearly you are motivated by MONEY because your posts always come back to that. My Maori friends are clearly looking forward as they dont look to the past like you constantly do on here which you cannot deny. They are ashamed of you.
NZer, Maori involved with iwi look back and forward
Posted on 27-05-2017 09:59 | By Peter Dey
NZer you claim to have Maori friends who are ashamed of me for looking back. I am pointing out that the iwi community that is maintaining marae and Maori language and Maori culture is the same community that struggled to achieve Treaty settlement justice through looking back and valuing their past. If your Maori friends belittle these people then I suspect that their values are Pakeha and they have no connection with the Maori community. They are believers in a mono-cultural New Zealand. I believe in a bi-cultural New Zealand, two cultures, both flourishing and respected.
NZer, Maori with Pakeha values deny Maori culture
Posted on 27-05-2017 10:11 | By Peter Dey
NZer, if Maori language and culture survives, and it has done so since 1840, it will not be because of your Maori mates. Your Maori mates are putting down all of the activists who have struggled to turn New Zealand into a genuinely bi-cultural country. All these activists looked back as well as forward, and they are the ones carrying Maori language and culture forward for future generations. I mention money in reply to Treaty protesters who say that Maori are getting favoured treatment. I am pointing out that Maori have received less than 10 per cent fair compensation for stolen land, so Treaty protesters should recognise that and stop their Treaty protest moaning.
NZer, let your Maori mates speak for themselves
Posted on 27-05-2017 10:17 | By Peter Dey
NZer, your Maori mates are not criticising me here. I suspect you do not really know what they think. They are just being polite to you when you go on with Treaty protesting. If they want to criticise me here they can but they don't. You should leave them out of your comments.
Peter
Posted on 27-05-2017 10:56 | By NZer
My Maori mates can have their own opinions and they will always be maori. Just because their opinions can sometimes be the same as Everyone else's does not make their opinion Pakeha. As they have quite rightly pointed out to me they can look forward to a bright future full of as much Maori culture they wish without going into the past. Clearly digging up the past creates a divisive future. They have preserved their own language thru their own family. Clearly you donot understand basic english as you are trying to change what was said when you were not privvy to the conversation so you should not be commenting as you were not there. You cannot despute that. Admit it mate you do not like people disagreeing with your views so try anything to discredit what is said even if you were not there. unbelievable.
last post on this thread
Posted on 27-05-2017 12:18 | By tutae.kuri
Mr Dey, in case you are unaware, academics, Historians or scientists, are not necessarily correct. I say again that some owe their positions to upholding the dogma of the time.I want to mention Professor Ruth Ross( you have passed over my reference). Ross was the recognised authority ( world wide at the time) on ToW matters. Fortunately she was able to research without interference from activists. Apparently she always felt there was another document from which the ToW was translated. She passed on before that came to light regrettably.In the meantime, reverse translations with today's language inserted have been made. Today's historians have ignored the original Document because it does not fit their own research. This is patently wrong but, activists have successfully seen it into the mainstream. That is typical academic self interest.
NZer, you are making things up
Posted on 27-05-2017 12:28 | By Peter Dey
NZer, these Maori friends that you talk about who have retained their Maori language through their own family are either fiction or they are involved with the Maori community. If they are involved with the Maori community then they do not believe what you think. People in the Maori community value the struggle that has been made to get justice for Government wrongs in the past. They look back as well as forward. These Maori friends that you claim can speak Maori in their families, and who only look forward have to be fiction that you are making up to suit your argument. Until they speak for themselves here your comments about them have no credibility.
NZer, I look back only to show up Treaty objector's bias
Posted on 27-05-2017 12:42 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you seem to think that I am looking back because I only think about the past. The best future for us is one with good race relations. That means not falsely accusing Maori of being greedy and wanting favoured treatment. All I am doing is pointing out to people like B.Johnson, B.Moon, and Don Brash that their accusations against Maori of being greedy and wanting favoured treatment are nonsense because they are selecting only information that suits them, and ignoring the fact that Maori have accepted unfair compensation without moaning.
tk, you are being confused by unqualified historians
Posted on 27-05-2017 13:15 | By Peter Dey
tk, unqualified doctors are not allowed to practice. Some people believe unqualified medical advice, and are confused by it. Unqualified historians confuse people in the same way. The differences of opinion between professional historians over the Treaty are small. The misinformation provided by unqualified historians about the Treaty is huge. The research by Ruth Ross did not change the fact that the Treaty copies in the Treaty of Waitangi Act are the genuine versions authorised by Governor Hobson on 6 February 1840. Today's historians ignore the Littlewood draft because it was used only for translation, and is still not an exact translation. There is no issue. It is only Treaty objectors who want to make an issue out of nothing.
NZer, explain your Maori friends some more
Posted on 27-05-2017 13:24 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you want us to believe that you have a heap of Maori friends who all speak Maori with their families at home and have nothing to do with Maori kohanga, schools, culture groups, marae, or iwi - not happening.
Anbob, Parliament can unmake the Limitation Act, they made it
Posted on 27-05-2017 13:40 | By Peter Dey
Anbob has mentioned that the Limitation Act prevents compensation claims going back more than 60 years. Parliament has recognised that the injustice to Maori by past Governments goes back to 1840, so it is a special case. The bad laws that previous Parliaments made can be changed. Every Parliament has the supreme right to make whatever laws it wants. It only needs to be elected to do it.
Ruth Ross Historian,
Posted on 27-05-2017 13:42 | By R. Bell
tutae, was indeed a remarkable woman, no question. however she is not described as a professor or even a doctor. This was due to her personal circumstances. I stand to be corrected. She believed that the only valid treaty was the one written in Maori. This does not mean she was correct. It beggars belief to imagine that the treaty was first written in Maori by the British, and contradicts the events of the night of Jan 4th. when it was translated from the English into Maori. If there was any doubt of the validity of the English version it would not have been signed, sealed and delivered, nor would it have been translated into Maori. Robin Bell.
@NZer
Posted on 27-05-2017 17:52 | By Papamoaner
I don't want to enter this debate at present, but I enjoy reading it. It is really as prominent as the proverbial dog's nuts that you actually don't have any "maori mates" at all. Too many things don't add up. I reckon you have made it all up. You flog the horse too hard by mentioning it in every posting you make for it to be truthful. Sometimes when some people lie to themselves it eventually becomes the truth in their own mind.
NZer, looking forward and also back does not divide society
Posted on 27-05-2017 19:29 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you say that things that happened a long time ago are just an excuse for laziness now, and that being concerned about them is dividing society. The forward looking Maori people who are successfully running kohanga, wharekura, whare wananga, marae, and iwi activities also have an awareness of their past and the struggles that took place and are not yet finished. They are still completing Treaty settlements. These people are not lazy or dividing society. The only people dividing society at the moment are Treaty opponents spreading misinformation, and you are supporting them.
Anbob and tutae run for cover,
Posted on 28-05-2017 09:03 | By R. Bell
and in the process refuse to address the unthinkable, that they are wrong. Maori do not seek 50% of power in N.Z. Responsible Maori seek only what they should of (always) had, the right to be Maori, to be free of the demand for assimilation placed on them by the crown and many Pakeha. The right to political, economic and social freedom. The principles we all live by are contained in the treaty, the principles of morality, of protection, of democratic rights to self determination, the right to equality, so long denied to Maori. Non of the above detract from tutae's rights to love and respect his ancestors, or to expect respect from others. Members of my whanau ( all Maori) recently undertook a journey to England to pay respects to their Pakeha ancestors in Yorkshire. It's what Maori do. Robin Bell.
What a crock
Posted on 28-05-2017 09:31 | By NZer
Apparently if Peter does not agree with a statement it it is "untrue, false, unreputable,discredited,racially biased,factually wrong, misinformed,or made up. Peter Does not believe anyone else can have an opinion unless it it is the same as his. No point discussing anything with someone like that..
Peter
Posted on 28-05-2017 10:38 | By NZer
Please show me where i said i have a heap of maori friends. I only said i have some. Please show me where i have said they have nothing to do with schools or marae?
NZer, you have not disproved the misinformation of Treaty objectors
Posted on 28-05-2017 12:06 | By Peter Dey
NZer, I accept that you only have some Maori mates. I just thought, wrongly it seems, that you had a heap of Maori mates because otherwise what they say is just an isolated point of view, and does not carry the same weight. When I have described comments as untrue, false, not reputable, discredited, racially biased, factually wrong, misinformed, or made up you have the opportunity to prove me wrong. You have failed to do that so objective, fair-minded people can see that what I am saying is right and that Treaty objectors are deceiving people with misinformation.
NZer, looking back is not used as an excuse for laziness
Posted on 28-05-2017 12:26 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you say that your Maori mates agree with you that things that happened long ago are just being used as excuses for laziness. The Maori people who are involved in all of the forward thinking hard work of maintaining Maori language, culture, and marae are the same people who negotiated Treaty settlements. Their concern for what happened long ago is not used as an excuse for laziness. It motivates them.
NZer, people in Maori schools and marae celebrate the past
Posted on 28-05-2017 12:49 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you say that your Maori friends are involved with schools and marae, but don't want to look back to the past. Your Maori friends are not credible because Maori schools and marae are very conscious of the past. Every time there is a tangi people spend two days listening to speeches that include references to the past. People do not use the past as an excuse for doing nothing. It is just part of life. It seems like your Maori friends are fictional.
N.zer, does not understand the difference,
Posted on 28-05-2017 13:24 | By R. Bell
between opinion and accepted fact. N.Zer is currently trying desperately to drive a wedge between the many Maori who he believes are content to be de-facto Pakeha, and the massive majority who are dedicated to the advancement of all Maori as Maori. Fact is if there are Maori content to be de facto Pakeha they remain as mysterious as N.Zers newly found Maori mates. Robin Bell.
Robin
Posted on 29-05-2017 09:30 | By Anbob
Why would I run for cover? I refer to my post 25/5/17 @ 11.16, Im all for equality and culture. I have however always argued against race based privilege in law and the use of interpretations of the TOW to obtain privilege. Re read all posts I have never resorted to personalising a post because of a different opinion or misquoting anyone. I rely on genuine honest debate and respect all genuine opinions. Peter, you say Parliament has supreme right. Parliament enacted the Acts that confiscated Maori Land in the first instance. By what you are saying, the confiscations were therefore legal. Your post 26-05-2017 @18:14 calling any opposing view of TOW ignorant is disappointing to say the least. Activism/extremism involves an intolerance of opposing viewpoints, it polarise opinions and builds resentment, look around the world. Time to move on.
Anbob, the term race based, is
Posted on 29-05-2017 12:11 | By R. Bell
used to engender an emotive response. New Zealand is a nation borne from a race based agreement. The articles of association ( T.O.W. ) are race based, to now use the term as a weapon against Maori aspirations is a dereliction of responsibility by the ( now ) majority. We, the majority, have to come to terms with the very simple fact that, Maori are not Pakeha, Its easy if you try. It does not create separatism, there are no race based laws as you claim, simply state recognition of racial differences and customary rights, as guaranteed by the treaty. Ambiguity, if it exists at all simply becomes a matter of debate and decision by the state. Your claim that Maori seats on council are unelected is disingenuous,They are elected by Maori for Maori and represent no more than a token representation. Democracy is flexible, it has to be.
Anbob, not knowing misinformation from fact is ignorance
Posted on 29-05-2017 17:01 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, Treaty objectors present misinformation about the Treaty of Waitangi which makes people who do not know the facts think that the Treaty is suspect and need not be honoured. It is not polite to say so, but if you do not know the facts about an issue then you are ignorant. What we are doing here is pointing out misinformation. Treaty objectors present selective history. The versions of the Treaty in the Treaty of Waitangi Act are the original versions authorised by Governor Hobson. That is a fact but Treaty objectors deny it. The Principles of the Treaty have been put into law by Parliament and court decisions, and supported by Parliament. That is a fact but Treaty objectors want to keep arguing about it.
Anbob, confiscation was legal, now it is not
Posted on 29-05-2017 17:09 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, our present Parliament has decided, by allowing Treaty settlements for confiscated land, that the confiscation laws did not honour the Treaty. Those laws were legal at the time. Our Parliament is free to look back at past laws and make new laws that express a different view. It is unfortunate, but Treaty objectors use too much selective information. Treaty objectors completely ignore the fact that Treaty settlements pay less than 10 per cent compensation and make no compensation for lost income, which highlights their selective bias.
I find it interesting...
Posted on 29-05-2017 20:30 | By groutby
....just a quiet time perhaps...within this article alone, the posts from Mr Bell and Mr Dey total over 71% (so far), with just four other writers contributing to the postings.
@Groutby
Posted on 30-05-2017 08:34 | By Papamoaner
Yes, I agree with you, but probably for different reasons. They are both very evidently passionate and compassionate on issues they see as morally important. Their arguments in various debates are invariably tangible, sometimes even cogent. I'm pretty active on these forums too and get a fair bit of abuse from psychopaths who don't care about the various topics - they just seek someone to argue with. ( I don't accuse you of any of that by the way, I am just generalising)
And your point is..groutby ?
Posted on 30-05-2017 08:37 | By R. Bell
just asking. As usual you have little to contribute, just oblique criticism. If you read what has been written, you will find factuality out scores conjecture by 95% to 5% Robin Bell.
Groutby, people are not writing answers because they have none
Posted on 30-05-2017 11:52 | By Peter Dey
I am taking the opportunity here to explain why B.Moon is contributing to racial disharmony with his misinformation. If you support his point of view, explain why you do.
Not only but also, papamoaner.
Posted on 30-05-2017 12:42 | By R. Bell
Education is the most wonderful thing. Since becoming involved in this forum, on this subject ( at the behest of a teenage granddaughter ) I purposely read literature on both sides of this debate. Almost without exception those who propose nullifying the treaty, do so from a position of imagined fear. They then fabricate to validate. Many have disappeared, but a hard core remain. They indulge in vague innuendo that cannot be validated, hence the withdrawal, only to return with the same fear driven claim, to represent the majority. The question is, do they? Robin Bell.
Maori were not rebels in the land wars
Posted on 30-05-2017 14:14 | By Peter Dey
B.Moon writes in his letter "land was fairly confiscated from rebel tribes". B.Moon is contradicted by professional historians and Parliament. Professional historians now tell us that Maori who fought in the land wars were simply doing their best to keep their land, against threats from the British army. Parliament has now agreed that Maori who fought in the land wars were unfairly treated and that is why we now have Treaty settlements. No knowledgeable person now refers to Maori who fought in the land wars as rebels.
Anbob, why criticise Maori for the privilege of ownership
Posted on 30-05-2017 14:51 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, a reading of the Treaty makes it clear that Maori have ownership rights to their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties for as long as they want. This based on the fact that the English version of the Treaty is totally legitimate, authorised by Governor Hobson on February 6 1840, and endorsed by Parliament in the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Anybody who owns property is privileged. Owning property is not a privilege unique to Maori. It is democracy. Treaty objectors complaining about Maori privilege are being totally one eyed.
Yes Peter, we are all privileged,
Posted on 30-05-2017 15:57 | By R. Bell
able to live in a totally unique country, borne from what was a traumatic beginning, and for Maori a traumatic journey. Those who do not enjoy this privilege, miss so much. Anbobs belief that the treaty is ambiguous simply reflects his desire to achieve equality on his terms. It's never been achieved in the history of mankind, let alone our history. Robin Bell.
In reply Papamoaner...
Posted on 30-05-2017 19:04 | By groutby
....I agree will all comments made by you, passionate, compelling.,..well yes, but sadly lacking in ability by some on this forum (more than two I hasten to add) to confidently yet without a dismissal approach on every comment made between some writers. There has of late been way to many unnecessary and derogatory comments made by writers and replies on various topics against others who does not share similar views, and to my surprise, are actually published. I guess it makes for "passionate" debate....but as a forum, I would hope for self control and quality articulation before what is basically low level abuse by some toward others. So for that reason, I choose not to offer my opinion on certain topics but will always certainly enjoy healthy discussion on matters. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me?..I would appreciate interaction from the forum moderator if necessary.
Thanks Guys
Posted on 30-05-2017 19:12 | By Anbob
I think we are all starting to go around in circles in our debate. We agree to disagree. The world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same.Robin, I think we can both agree that a good start towards equality would be to ensure no race/ group is over represented in any negative statistic (wealth, health, prisons, home ownership, education etc.) We should all work together towards getting there.Respectfully, thank you both for a sound debate.
For the third time Anbob,
Posted on 31-05-2017 08:38 | By R. Bell
you withdraw from this debate. You now claim you support the removal of inequality from society, yet have consistently claimed that Maori are in receipt of privilege.How else can inequality be removed without, a policy of removal? You constantly claim the treaty is ambiguous in all respects except of course the granting of sovereignty to Britain. Never mentioned. You favour the removal of the treaty, yet offer no opinion on the special status of Maori, dismissing all reference in law, as separatism. You favour a referendum on the treaty, knowing full well that a disenfranchise of Maori rights would almost certainly be the outcome. Don't talk about equality Anbob, you simply don't understand it. Robin Bell.
Way to go, Robin
Posted on 31-05-2017 09:47 | By Peter Dey
Anbob, I don't feel that we are going round in circles. We are simply, point by point, providing rational criticism to the misinformation put out by Treaty objectors. If Treaty objectors have nothing more to say it is because what they say in the first place is not justified.
In your reply to papamoaner, groutby
Posted on 31-05-2017 11:39 | By R. Bell
you seriously criticise Sunlives moderation techniques. It is inevitable that this forum progresses past mere comment. Misinformation has to be addressed, veiled insult to Maori, has to be addressed, not by Maori but by those who value good race relations, based on mutual respect. Any dismissal you may detect is also inevitable when confronted with opinion based on misinformation or simply wishful thinking. You may not enjoy direct and often disrespectful comment, perhaps you should just ignore it. It is however noticeable that you tend to ignore that, with which you agree. Robin Bell.
Groutby, pointing out ignorance may be seen as dismissive
Posted on 31-05-2017 14:26 | By Peter Dey
Groutby, writers here get accused of being ignorant which may seem dismissive. However if they are unable to justify their comments then they probably are ignorant and it is good for everybody to know. This column is an opportunity for people who support B.Moon to explain why. So far there has been no credible support for B.Moon,, which supports my claim that B.Moon is writing misinformation.
@Groutby
Posted on 31-05-2017 22:17 | By Papamoaner
No, it's not just you at all. There are at least two characters on these Sunlive forums who I suspect are psychopaths, or at least narcissists. The basis for that suspicion is the fact that if you offend them by whatever means, they will follow you around the threads, making sarcastic comment on everything you say, but show no interest whatsoever in the discussion topic. Once they find a target, for them it becomes an obsession. Best to ignore them, although I sometimes can't resist the temptation to wind them up a bit, unfortunately bringing me down to their level, so not a good strategy. Similar prose, writing style, spelling, etc suggests that two of them might actually be the same person running two identities on the forums. I hasten to add that they are not on this thread nor have been.
Yes groutby
Posted on 01-06-2017 03:55 | By NZer
I have also noticed over 75 percent of the posts are from the Pete and Robin alternative history show. One post in return does not quite seem as good when you can do 6 replys for good measure.
Nzer and groutby, play
Posted on 01-06-2017 08:40 | By R. Bell
not "the ball". B. Moons letter discusses his professed views on aspects of history, presented as fact. Peter Dey and R Bell simply take him to task on his version of what occurred. Legitimate comments, questioned by tutae and Anbob, both of whom questioned ( in detail) what was said. That is their right. Our right is to counter their comments with fact. If readers carefully read comments from groutby and Nzer you will find absolutely no input on subject matter, in fact both indulge in that, of which they complain. Robin Bell.
NZer, so far nobody here supports B.Moon's alternative history
Posted on 01-06-2017 08:50 | By Peter Dey
The basic point made by B.Moon is that the normal rules of compensation should not apply to Maori treaty settlements. He says that the value of land now is almost entirely owed to the hard work and capital of early settlers and their descendants. He ignores the fact that, if their land had not been confiscated Maori would have been a part of that hard work, and still would have owned their land. He also ignores the fact that no compensation has been considered for over 100 years of lost income. So far, in over 90 comments here, there has been no support for B.Moon. Nzer, if you consider criticism of B.Moon to be alternative history, explain why.
Treaty objectors seem to have fundamentalist closed minds
Posted on 01-06-2017 10:21 | By Peter Dey
Over recent years there have been many movements set up by Treaty objectors. As each movement has faded a new one has been set up. There has been the One New Zealand Foundation, the Colour blind New Zealand movement, the book "Twisting the Treaty", the book "One Treaty, One Nation", and now the Hobson's Pledge movement. They all seem to promote the belief that Maori are greedy, and want and are being given favoured treatment. Their belief seems to be a fundamentalist view which enables supporters to close their minds to inconvenient information. It looks very much like their basic belief is that Maori culture is inferior, and should be resisted as much as possible.
For your eyes only, papamoaner.
Posted on 01-06-2017 10:35 | By R. Bell
Some years ago ex city councilor Bill Faulkner wrote in his Sunlive column that he knew of one local political activist who used at least six different pseudonyms on Sunlive's comments. Groutby is not that person, but Nzer is definitely suspect. Robin Bell.
And the 1Law4All Political Party
Posted on 01-06-2017 10:52 | By Peter Dey
The 1Law4All Political Party is another faded movement by Treaty objectors. If we want race relations in New Zealand to move forward positively then pointing out the misinformation presented by Treaty objectors helps in making better decisions. Treaty objectors seem to have a basic belief that allows them to close their minds to inconvenient information. The cooperation of the present Government with the Maori Party, whose votes they do not need to stay in government, has been a welcome sign of the desire by our leaders to embrace good race relations. Treaty objectors seem to have no such desire.
Fundamentalism and reverse psychology
Posted on 01-06-2017 11:02 | By R. Bell
as applied by N.zer, tutae and Anbob are the common link used by all of the anti treaty industry. They become so confused, they contradict each other constantly. Example... B.Moon talks about pre treaty Maori. Andy Oakley ( Hobson's Pledge group ) claims Maori don't exist, and never did. Peter Dey and Robin Bell, quote only verifiable history by verifiable, peer reviewed historians. So far Nzer, tutae nor Anbob have provided any examples of verification of their beliefs, not one. Robin Bell.
My last 3 posts have not appeared
Posted on 01-06-2017 13:01 | By tutae.kuri
Unfortunately, several posts of mine have not appeared on the thread. This is disappointing because of the length of time put in to the post. Not really sure whether they have been censored or just lost in the ether ?Dey and Bell are not correct in their comments on ignorance of treaty matters pertaining to posters. The problem for us complete obfuscation that goes with the thing. Nothing was absolutely clear in the beginning and modern dogma has been added over the years which has clouded the issue further. Legislation has been put in place which has added a legitimacy undeserved.I admit that some of the land was confiscated unreasonably and compensation paid. The fact that it was 10% of current values , is still far beyond the value it was at seizure. The fact is, that full compensation could never be afforded anyway.
NZer, tell us about some wrong alternative history
Posted on 01-06-2017 13:50 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you and B.Moon accuse other people of alternative history. In the case of B.Moon, it is an accusation of grossly false statements about our colonial past. Tell us what you believe is wrong alternative history.
tk, Good points
Posted on 01-06-2017 14:48 | By Peter Dey
The value of fair compensation is calculated at the time of payment. The value at the time of loss is not what fair compensation uses. That is what everybody else gets but not Maori. Fair compensation to Maori would be easily affordable. Payment would just need to spread over a longer period, 20 or 30 years. Maori are not even asking for full compensation. I am simply pointing out that so far they have got less than 10 per cent and Treaty objectors should stop moaning about favoured treatment for Maori and realise that they have been subsidised by Maori for the past 100 years. There is absolutely no confusion amongst professional historians over the Treaty. The only confusion is for people who do not realise that Treaty objectors are giving them misinformation.
tk, the basic Treaty facts
Posted on 01-06-2017 15:00 | By Peter Dey
Governor Hobson authorised an official Maori version and an official English version of the Treaty of Waitangi on 6 February 1840. He sent copies to Britain. Those copies still exist in British archives. The English version was prepared first and is not an exact translation of the Maori version, but the two versions are complementary not contradictory. In 1975 Parliament put these two versions into law in the Treaty of Waitangi Act. To allow for the two different versions, they referred to the Principles of the Treaty in the Act. Court cases later established what these Principles should be. The Principles have been worded differently at different times, but again these wordings are complementary not contradictory. If anybody wants historical verification of this information, it can be provided. Nothing about this is confusing.
Impartial (well, partly) observation
Posted on 02-06-2017 11:36 | By Papamoaner
Whilst a good debate is always stimulating, I have kept out of this one because I am not competent, simply because it's too technical without doing a lot of prep reading on the history, However, It is apparent that two contributors have an in-depth knowledge in detail of the background history, and have consistently provided references. The remainder appear to be out of their depth, with some indulging in bigotry. At risk of appearing to enter the debate, It does seem to me that the crux of the argument has more to do with slippery salesmanship (as purchasers of land) base upon exploitive land value dishonesty all those years ago. These days we're still at it to our discredit. That's why we have a Commerce Commission. We haven't changed much have we !
Papamoa, only Government land deals get Treaty compensation
Posted on 02-06-2017 15:23 | By Peter Dey
The Office of Treaty Settlements has voluminous data on Treaty settlements. Wrongful past Government actions were either shoddy purchases involving Government failure to honour agreements, like with Ngai Tahu in the South Island, or were straight confiscations on grounds that were legal at the time but breached the Treaty, like with local iwi in Tauranga. The private purchases that B.Moon writes about are just a distraction. It is only wrongful acquisition of Maori land by past Governments that is a Treaty issue, and the value of that wrongfully taken land is clearly more than $30 billion.
Something more for B.Moon to consider
Posted on 02-06-2017 16:48 | By Peter Dey
B.Moon maintains, in effect, that the value of land is higher because of the contribution of Pakeha land owners. However there are still Maori land owners whose land has the same value as that of their Pakeha neighbours. So it is not Pakeha hard work but community hard work, Maori and Pakeha, that has increased land values. So fair compensation would allow Maori, who had land confiscated, to get back the equivalent of what Maori land owners still have. In Tauranga Treaty settlements have returned less than 10 per cent of fair compensation.
People and Treaty fatigue.
Posted on 03-06-2017 09:14 | By R. Bell
Some people never change Peter. B.Moon is just one. He, like all anti treaty campaigners are responsible for the constant flow of alternative narrative. All designed to undermine our confidence in, and respect for both the government and Maori. Anbob has for years coupled his call for equality, to his call for the scrapping of the treaty. It is more political than social, in fact the extreme doctrine he represents has a very narrow view of equality. It all contributes to treaty fatigue and peoples desire to see an end to it all. Such an end, as proposed by treaty opponents would create havoc, with a very sizable minority once again facing total domination by a generally uncaring majority. Result.....disaster. Robin Bell.
NZer, back up your claims
Posted on 07-06-2017 11:30 | By Peter Dey
NZer, you claim that people are presenting alternative history. Give us some names of people you accuse and where you believe they are wrong.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.