What must be of public concern is the selective and slanted version of our history given by nationally-accepted historians. A recent case was that of Dame Anne Salmond, who suggested the pre-European Maori were gentle and loving fathers. This was based simply on the observance of families and did not in any way mention inter-tribal aggression or the repression of women, and slaves in the pa or the regular practice of female infanticide. Logically one might ask ‘Would Maori be likely to display any other behaviour in the presence of European visitors'? One would have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.

Another example of blatant selectivity, was shown by the late Michael King when in his volume, ‘The History of New Zealand', he made no mention of Maori cannibalism which was endemic to all tribes, whether for post-battle rituals or sustenance. When questioned on his omission he suggested the practice was so infrequent as to be not worthy of noting. This from a historian?

It is this sort of reporting that treaty revisionists thrive on.

B Johnson, Omokoroa.