I just thought I'd drop a note to point out something puzzling in the letters by M Brooks (December 24, 2015,”Special holiday - why!” et alii).

The said M Brooks makes a point of using the term part-Maori.

Now it must be said that because New Zealand was a British Crown Colony, most of the ‘foreign parts' in these ‘part-Maori' are British.

Now British law is rather firm on the matter of people combining their properties and efforts to form a collective body, which is what a tribe is; British law is also rather strong on the matter of inheritance.

People using the term part-Maori appear to be saying that part-British descent precludes the British right of collective inheritance under law derived from British law.

Could M Brooks and others kindly stop using the term part-Maori?

It makes you look stupid, and detracts from your argument.

Wesley Parish, Tauranga