Rebel reference incorrect

B Moon (The Weekend Sun, May 19) in referring to the taking of Maori land in the 1860s makes the comment that "land was fairly confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been warned it would be". In my view B Moon is misinforming us about this. Professional historians now tell us that the land wars were provoked by the government of the time using the British army to threaten Maori tribes who did not want to sell their land.

These tribes felt compelled to defend their land, as happened in Tauranga, and the government then used this as a reason to label them rebels. Professional historians no longer refer to these tribes as rebels. B Moon gives us a view of our history that is not shared by professional historians, and he is not a professional historian himself, so in my view people should be wary of the information that he provides.

P Dey, Welcome Bay.


There are no Maori only privileges,

Posted on 13-06-2017 13:42 | By R. Bell

The only hospital with a kaupapa ward is Tauranga Hospital. It is absolutely not Maori only. Over the years The Maori all blacks have included many Pakeha. Check it out. Captain sensible is wrong on all counts except scholarships which are there for obvious reasons. Robin Bell.

Mr Dey

Posted on 13-06-2017 11:45 | By Captain Sensible

Peter Dey is unaware that by trying to justify special race based privileges, he is unwittingly confirming they exist...which is undeniable anyway! Maori All Blacks, maori-only hospital wards, maori-only scholarships, maori-only High Achiever awards in all NZ schools ( there are no H.A awards for any other races), and the list goes on and on and on. Peter cannot deny these lamely tries to justify them!


Posted on 13-06-2017 09:13 | By crazyhorse

Now has serial killers raised up to heroes or martyrs, iwi receiving treaty claims in places they were never from in the first place if you have murdered tortured or eaten people you are not a hero, even if the likes of Salmon and Orange may say so!What everyone has forgotten is that some of these treaty claims have been settled "full and final" half a dozen times before.As I said before, there have been lot's of history used that should have been examined, when the head of the tribunal admits that false research has been used would you not think questions would be asked.Dey says that there is no corruption in the treaty process, Durie said there was, why was it not looked into.Under National maori have been given free rein, what will be next?, and there will be a next.

Crazyhorse, Produce evidence that Edward Durie was Judge and also claimant

Posted on 12-06-2017 18:27 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, your claim that Edward Durie was on the Tribunal for the Ngati Wahatua claim and was also representing Ngati Whatua at the same hearing is ridiculous. Produce your evidence. Edward Durie has never tried to change the meaning of the Treaty, neither has any other fluent speaker of Maori. Rangatiratanga has always been equivalent to sovereignty, and kawanatanga has always meant government. It is Pakeha who cannot speak Maori who have made an issue out of the translation of te tititi.

Crazyhorse. Maori wanting the Treaty did not excuse Government wrongdoing

Posted on 12-06-2017 16:02 | By Peter Dey

DR Michael Bassett, Dr Giselle Byrnes, Dr John Robinson have all criticised the Waitangi Tribunal. Michael Bassett was on the Waitangi Tribunal for the Tauranga Moana hearings. He criticised the Tribunal report and then signed in support of the final recommendation. He never said that the Waitangi Tribunal was corrupt or a kangaroo court. Judges disagree with majority rulings from timer to time. They never say that we should do away with courts of law. Maori wanted British Government and British law. They did not invite the Government to make unjust laws and ignore the Treaty if it suited them.

Basic rule for complaints against maori, don't look!

Posted on 12-06-2017 16:00 | By crazyhorse

Durie admitted evidence used to settle claims was either distorted or researchers had money withheld if they did not come up with research that suited.How could a member of the Waitangi tribunal and claimant at the same time representing Ngati Whatua o Orakei re-translate the treaty from the original Maori back to English and in so doing redefined two words kawanatanga and rangatiratanga to create a treaty that confirms Maori sovereignty.If you do not look for corruption you will not find it, but, how can this have happened and not one crown lawyer or MP asked questions.He was on the tribunal handling his own claim, not only that, he tried to change the meaning of the TOW.If the TOW is so important to everyone and it is constantly being pushed to be written into a constitution should a crown lawyer have taken interest?.

Crazyhorse, basic rule for complaints against Maori, no evidence no action

Posted on 11-06-2017 17:40 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, a small minority of Treaty objectors are almost continually making claims against Maori. If they produce no evidence, just hearsay without any credible support, the Government should do nothing. That is what the police do with criminal complaints. If there is no evidence there is no action taken.

Crazyhorse, kawanatanga does not mean sovereignty

Posted on 11-06-2017 16:17 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, The Maori version of the Treaty uses kawanatanga, government, where the English version uses sovereignty. So Maori only agreed, in te tiriti, to be governed, not give up sovereignty. But nobody is making an issue of it now because Maori are not asking for their sovereignty to be returned. Words with different meanings were used as though they meant the same, but it is now a non-issue.

Crazyhorse, you are exaggerating

Posted on 11-06-2017 15:26 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, Edward Durie did concede that not all Treaty research was fully objective. He did not say that the whole Waitangi Tribunal process was corrupt, as you seem to claim. Admitting to isolated instances of researching misbehaviour proves nothing about the overall Tribunal process. We have had politicians convicted of crimes. That does not prove that Parliament is corrupt. The Tribunal is not a court of law. It is the best way we have of making some redress for past Government crimes against Maori. All Treaty settlements have been approved by Parliament. If critics had a genuine case against Treaty settlements they would have been stopped long ago.

Captain Sensible, the Waitangi Tribunal is not a court of law

Posted on 11-06-2017 12:46 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you criticise the Waitangi Tribunal as being a kangaroo court, but it is not a court of law. It is a tribunal set up to make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the Treaty. The Treaty is between Maori tribes and the Crown. Treaty settlements have been made because of breaches of the Treaty by the Crown. The Tribunal can only make recommendations. Settlements are made by the Government after they are presented to Parliament. Parliament is not a kangaroo court. Pakeha, grizzling about being excluded from Treaty debate, have to accept that their are only two parties in Tribunal debates, Maori tribes and the Government. Independent Pakeha who want to express an opinion have to do it through their local MP and the Government.

Captain Sensible, murders before 1840 cannot be resolved

Posted on 11-06-2017 10:49 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you introduce the issue of people being murdered by Maori before 1840. This was before New Zealand had British law under the Treaty. There is no way that these murders can be redressed by British law when it occurred before British law applied. These murders are certainly not evidence that the Waitangi Tribunal is biased. You claim that the Tribunal is a kangaroo court. Produce some evidence to support this claim. Without credible evidence your claim is misinformation. You have still not produced credible evidence for your claim that historians are writing fake history. You have given us anti-Pakeha stories, but none that are fake from professional historians.


Posted on 11-06-2017 10:48 | By crazyhorse

maori wanted the TOW not "us" it took years for the poms go agree, and the only thing that matters is the offer of the treaty and the "acceptance" that happened in 1840, so we are only interested in the meanings that the words had in the treaty in 1840, to put modern meanings to words written in 1840 is manipulation, and to what end would that be for The treaty was penned by European's, the European meaning is paramount, it is the offer, the signing by maori is the acceptance of the offer. maori wanted the TOW, To abolish slavery,female infanticide, cannibalism, the introduction of law and being granted the rights of British subjects. blatant lies like that of Hugh Kawharu who was a member of the tribunal and claimant maori never ceded sovereignty, why was this not questioned by a crown lawyer?.

Edward Taihakurei Durie, 1989

Posted on 11-06-2017 10:39 | By crazyhorse

ET Durie head of the Waitangi tribunal for several years admitted research and evidence used to settle claims was dodgy.The question Dey should be asking is why the government or a lawyer for the crown didn't look into this, ex members and researchers for the tribunal have come forward to complain about the way the historical research was handled.Former Tribunal members who complained included Dr Michael Bassett,Dr Giselle ByrnesDr John RobinsonDurie said Claimant groups who have commissioned researchers sometimes required researchers to remove material unhelpful to the claimants case or amend their conclusions, sometimes as a condition to being paid. Basic rules of a National or Labour government when confronted with allegations against Maori are, never look into anything you don't have to, never set up an inquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.

Crazyhorse, your views are based on misinformation

Posted on 10-06-2017 14:02 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, neither you nor Captain Sensible can provide evidence to support your claim that we are being misled by historians. This means that the people supplying you with information are misleading you. There is no Government rort in favour of Maori. That claim is misinformation. Maori do not want a separate system. That claim is misinformation. The cost of including Maori culture in society is not unaffordable. That claim is misinformation. Maori are not getting favoured treatment. That claim is misinformation. The people, like B.Moon, providing the misinformation prove their lack of credibility because they cannot provide evidence to support their claims.

Not one in NZ's history

Posted on 10-06-2017 10:44 | By Captain Sensible

....and not a single family of any race has been compensated, nor made to feel guilty for their ancestors being murdered and eaten. Guilt for crimes ( real in some cases but often imagined and made "real" once rubber stamped by the Waitangi Tribunal...aka Kangaroo Court) appears a one way street and although we all know the race responsible for killing the most Maori is the same one that wiped out the Moriori, we are too afraid to say anything for fear of being bullied and labelled the 'r' word.

Crazyhorse, we do not want Pakeha separatism

Posted on 10-06-2017 10:32 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, your version of Pakeha separatism is not what New Zealand wants. New Zealand wants racial harmony and goodwill based on shared Maori and Pakeha culture. Pakeha monocultural separatism is a dead end. Maori culture enriches us.

Crazyhorse, Maori tribes still exist. We are returning what was taken.

Posted on 10-06-2017 10:03 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, nobody is asking you to feel guilty about wrongdoing by governments in the past. But it is now accepted historical fact that past Governments wrongfully took Maori land. The Maori tribes and the Government still exist so all that is happening is that Governments are returning, in part, what was taken. The value of Treaty settlements is less than 10 per cent of what was taken, so you should be grateful that Maori have been subsidising you for your whole life, and even now you are paying back less than 10 per cent of what you should. You are the greedy one, not Maori.

Crazyhorse, Maori culture does not separate us. It enriches us.

Posted on 10-06-2017 09:54 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, you believe that historians are giving us fake history, but your belief is based on emotion not evidence. All your claims are based on emotion not evidence. The latest 'Listener' has the top ten personal concerns as health, housing, education, crime, the economy, immigration, mental health, income, environmental damage, and child poverty. Most people do not share your emotional anger at Maori culture. Maori culture is seen as enriching society not separating us. Maori language is something beautiful that makes us unique as a country, and something that is worth preserving. It is the beliefs like yours, that we should be monocultural, that are actually separatism. Accepting Maori culture into mainstream society is not separatism.

Any guilt you feel is in your own head.

Posted on 10-06-2017 09:16 | By R. Bell

No one is held responsible for their ancestors actions. It is the Crown who are held responsible. It is the Crown who assumed responsibility for Maori welfare and failed. It is the Crown who "enabled "your ancestors to advance at horrendous cost to Maori. Your criticism is out of all proportion, example (1) since settlements began the N.Z. government has disbursed around 1500 billion dollars, only 3 billion in settlements. (2)This year 85.3 billion, 11.5 billion to education. And you grizzle about Maori language spending. You insult all politicians who don't share your irrational thinking, you insult Maori in the most abusive way. Yet you attempt to align yourself with Eric Hoffer. It was he who said .... Insult is the WEAK mans idea of strength..... Think about it, it may help you. Robin Bell.


Posted on 09-06-2017 16:05 | By crazyhorse

Why do K1W1's today take the blame for what their ancestors did?.Why do a people with a small amount of maori blood hold K1W1"s responsible for all their problems, whether they be real or imaginedWhy do we have to live with the guilt of being remotely racist or in constant censorship of ourselves while maori and their "Klingons" behave any way they want?There seems to be an assumption that "we" must live in guilt for what others before our time have done.I don't hold today's generations in any country guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, personally.


Posted on 09-06-2017 15:52 | By crazyhorse

Being a National MP especially one of the "boss hogs like "honest Billy or Christine Finlayson you have to be a certain kind of person, I'm not saying a good person, I'm saying a certain type of person.It is my opinion they are all liars, persons of low moral fortitude, any explanation "they" need to be true can be true. the reason they tell the lies and slide through back door deals with the maori party who actually run, or should I say "control" K1W1's is that they truly believe they can figure out a way to justify anything they do! or say!.Do you want more separatism? more "them and us?", National are now the maori party "Natouri".Want another 3 years of rorts?.

Lets put the trash out.

Posted on 09-06-2017 15:39 | By crazyhorse

How long can we keep this up?, we are small nation of people with limited resources, especially when it comes to education, law and order and health 3 of the most important things in keeping a country like NZ at the top as far as living standards and a safe place to live and raise a family.What is the true cost of a separate system for maori, how much really comes out of your back pocket to "appease" this "super race".This can't go on forever, they are like maggots feeding off the ever dwindling corpse of the NZ taxpayer, every day we hear about something else, it all cost money, $600 million for the maori language, say it quickly and it doesn't sound much but in an economy like ours it's a truckload.

For one reason or another,

Posted on 08-06-2017 17:20 | By R. Bell

past settlements weren't good enough. Your dead right there crazyhorse. Token payments, no land returned, absolutely nothing to enable Maori social, political or economic future. Hundreds of claims for our entire coastline. What absolute rubbish. There is no, that's none, zilch "ownership" involved. The claim is for customary rights, Guaranteed by the treaty. To have a say in protecting those rights. Non Maori rights of access is guaranteed in law. Check it out. Form as many organisations as you like, they will end just like all your others, nullified. Robin Bell.

Making A Difference with

Posted on 08-06-2017 16:30 | By crazyhorse

The claim for Auckland by the maori king and the hundreds of claims lodged for our entire coastline sums up the arrogance and pure greed of these people.It's also disturbing that any of these claimants can get funding paid for by us, but, if we want to fight any of them who pays for that? you guessed it, you pay for it yourself.Thankfully the "Democracy Action group" have this in their sights as well, join up, make a difference.

Their desires are insatiable.

Posted on 08-06-2017 13:33 | By crazyhorse

Treaty claims will never end. For one reason or another past settlement of claims werent good enough. It might just be because we want more now, and were breaking our word, but that doesnt matter because weve got the Treaty, and it says we can do anything. If we want more and more then were entitled to have it and were going to have it, and theres going to be trouble if we dont. Nothing else is justice. And even if at some future time we do decide we wont make another claim, thats not the end of the story, because then the Crown and Maori just move on into a new phase in their relationship. You are never going to escape us, and our desires are insatiable. Land, wealth, power, the works.Maori will take everything, "except," responsibility for themselves.

At last crazyhorse you get it.

Posted on 07-06-2017 16:47 | By R. Bell

The claims process is coming to an end. Another few years should do it. The government will definately dry up the funding to both the lawyers and disgruntled claimants. Everything has to go through the Waitangi Tribunal, a group of highly regarded New Zealanders. In any event the process has to play out. You think this is bad. Imagine what it was like for Maori before. Robin Bell.

Treaty objection is not a top ten issue

Posted on 07-06-2017 12:32 | By Peter Dey

It seems that Treaty objectors are an extreme minority, which is encouraging. It seems that non-Maori are happy about the increasing place of Maori culture in mainstream society. The latest 'Listener' has the top ten personal concerns as health, housing, education, crime, the economy, immigration, mental health, income, environmental damage, and child poverty. People are not persuaded by Treaty objectors' arguments. They see increased Maori culture in society as something positive, not a threat.


Posted on 07-06-2017 12:23 | By crazyhorse

We have a "grievance industry" not to be mistaken for a "grievance process". Once you get your head around that it makes it all a lot easier to understand, to iwi its big business. Lets look at this "not" from an angry tax payer, but from the business side of things, the government say claims are nearing an end, remember we are talking business, would you walk away from a business that earned you millions of dollars a year and it was completely paid for by the NZ tax payer, do you think treaty troughing lawyers are going to let that happen. "Think about this real carefully" TROUGHING GO'S ON FOREVER, THINK LABOUR OR "honest" Billy WILL STOP IT??????????????????.Yeah?, na!,

Crazyhorse, the only people

Posted on 07-06-2017 10:12 | By R. Bell

using the terms racist and redneck, are those who oppose the treaty, why? Is it because you want to whip up a frenzy of hatred? You seem to enjoy Eric Hoffer quotes, ponder this one, " we do not look for allies when we love, but we ALWAYS look for allies when we hate. How true that is. Robin Bell.

CS,Maori who resisted the Government were supported by the Treaty

Posted on 06-06-2017 17:58 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you say that Maori who rose against the Government were rebels. However we now know that Maori who resisted the Government were in fact attacked by the Government. They were supported by the Treaty, and were not rising against the Government at all. They did not want to fight. They just wanted the Government to stop attacking them for their land. There is no reputable historian who says otherwise. The Government agrees and that is why we now have Treaty settlements.

Crazyhorse, give us some true history backed by credible evidence

Posted on 06-06-2017 17:17 | By Peter Dey

Crazyhorse, you seem to believe, along with Captain Sensible, that professional historians, politicians, and the education system are giving us fake history. Provide the names of some of these people, and what you think they are saying that is fake, and then provide what you think is evidence to refute them. So far you have only provided unsubstantiated opinion.


Posted on 06-06-2017 16:52 | By crazyhorse

It was American writer and philosopher Eric Hoffer who said, Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.And now, New Zealand is a "scrounger's paradise", and the "treaty of waitangi" is like crystal meth to the treaty troughers who are sucking this country dry and living off K1W1's like parasites, They couldn't imagine life with out it!. Something needs to change, this is fact, not fiction and remember you are the racists!!, YOU ARE THE REDNECKS.'Especially if you question or say no to a "treatyist" or anyone else from the "grievance industry", yelling racist is a preprogrammed response to not getting what they want, or, having to answer questions they would rather not, especially about "true history" look how well it works!.

Captain Sensible, radiocarbon evidence shows Maori were here first.

Posted on 06-06-2017 16:40 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, it is beside the point, but there is no radiocarbon evidence of anybody in New Zealand before Maori arrived, including in areas adjacent to the Waipoua forest. The rock formations in the Waipoua forest can not be dated, so getting access would prove nothing. The people agitating for access are living in the past, before modern radiocarbon dating. Rock formations can not be dated.

Captain Sensible, justify your position.

Posted on 06-06-2017 13:55 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you are convinced that professional historians are providing fake history, and misleading everybody, including the Government. If this is not true then you are the one providing misinformation. So far you have not provided any credible support for your accusation. You need to name professional historians, state what they have written that is fake, and then provide credible evidence that they are wrong.

Sensible?, the privilege for the Pakeha majority is political domination

Posted on 06-06-2017 12:32 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, it's beside the point but Pakeha have no need for specifically Pakeha race based privileges. They have political domination of all levels of government and all government departments. The society that we have is what the Pakeha majority wants. They even want more Maori culture as part of the mainstream. Why do you object? You have a hidden agenda that you seem unwilling to reveal.

C Sensible, so how does one teacher prove anything about professional historians

Posted on 06-06-2017 11:47 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you are so blinkered that I doubt a conversation between you and a teacher would involve any listening on your part at all. However, whatever one teacher might say, you have still not produced any credible evidence to support the accusation that professional historians are writing fake history. Give us an example of a named historian and the history you believe is fake, and don't change the subject.

Captain Sensible, you are avoiding your initial claim

Posted on 06-06-2017 10:09 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, your initial claim here was that make-it-up historians are giving us fake history. Only one of your examples of fake history is supported by professional historians. The Kohimarama conference was attended by Chiefs selected because they supported the Government, and even then when asked to vote against the Kingitanga they refused. So even in this case you are the one presenting fake history. You can produce no credible evidence that professional historians are supporting your other examples of fake history. There is none.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 06-06-2017 09:57 | By Captain Sensible

I phoned the school and spoke with the brainwasher, sorry, 'teacher' involved and she told me the same lies as she told the class. So, yes indeed, I and many others are definitely accusing the Government, professional "historians", and the education system of making up fake history. And there's more lies to come as you are no doubt aware the brainwashers are about to change the law re teachers needing 're-education' on the Treaty so that they will be more effective in the drive to turn NZ into New Zimbabwe. You can say whatever you want but the truth is always the truth.

Made up and moulded,

Posted on 06-06-2017 09:51 | By R. Bell

by captain confused. No credible historian has as yet discredited the Waitangi Tribunal. not one. You must learn to provide evidence for your ridiculous claims. Who are these mysterious whistle blowers? There are no race based laws in N.Z. not one. All so called privileges pertaining to Maori are available to non Maori, your long running questions are mindless time wasting., typical of a very desperate group of political losers. Robin Bell.

A little education for captain confused,

Posted on 06-06-2017 09:10 | By R. Bell

New Zealanders were heavily involved in the trade of "Blackbirding". 1n 1868 John Thurston, British consul in Fiji, wrote to Wellington complaining that nine N.Z. ships were tied up in Suva, with human cargoe. The schooner Lulu arrived in Auckland with slaves for Edward Brissenden's flax mill. The Herald reported May 1870 "these n*****s are not in N.Z. voluntarily. Maori dispossessed by land confiscations were forced to work for Pakeha at sub starvation wages. No one used the term slaves, but that is what they were. Your kids teacher is doing the right thing, telling the truth, so long denied by you. Fact is the American slaves were treated better, they at least had monetary value. Robin Bell.

Captain Sensible, you need more proof than one teacher

Posted on 05-06-2017 22:36 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you are accusing the Government, professional historians, and the education system of making up fake history. So far the evidence that you have produced comes from what a child told you that they heard from one teacher. It is not actually evidence against the people that you are accusing. I do not have to deny. You have not produced any evidence yet.

@ Peter Dey

Posted on 05-06-2017 16:26 | By Captain Sensible

I have been waiting for your good self or Mr Bell to give an example of race based privileges denied to maori but available to pakeha only. Clock's been ticking since 2012!

historians discredited by whistleblowers

Posted on 05-06-2017 15:12 | By Captain Sensible

Several historians have blown the whistle on the new "historians"...make your finding fit with what we want...or you don't get paid. That is the proven MO of the discredited 'Waitangi Tribunal'. There are even research bans into finding out about our real history...for example the Waipoua forest wall, that suggests maori were not in NZ first, has a 75 year ban which runs out in 2063. This of course perpetuates the "fake history" we have been bombarded with in NZ. Anybody who rises against a government that was put in place at the request of the maori chiefs, is classed as a rebel. But I guess the PC revisionists...sorry "historians", are paid to call them something different.

Captain Sensible, you have not answered James Bellich or Treaty settlements

Posted on 05-06-2017 14:25 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, I pointed out that professional historians no longer refer to the tribes involved in the land wars as rebels. You described my claim as fake history from make-it-up historians. I provided evidence from James Bellich and Treaty settlements. You seem unable to deny my evidence.

@ P. Dey

Posted on 05-06-2017 13:47 | By Captain Sensible

Typical, deny, deny deny. Tell us Mr Dey, what do you think of the teachers brainwashing claims about pre-treaty maori. True or false? My evidence comes from diaries, letters, books, transcripts, speeches, journals and all the documentation that was written at the time, including from the maori chiefs. Where does yours come from...a Disney movie? Moana?

Captain Sensible, prove it.

Posted on 05-06-2017 11:22 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, you claim that your kid's teacher is telling fake history brainwashing. Prove it.

examples of 'fake history' brainwashing

Posted on 04-06-2017 17:08 | By Captain Sensible

My kids teacher has told the class that Maori were kept as slaves by Europeans ( the Treaty abolished slavery and the only people keeping maori slaves were their fellow maori). Maori were given influenza laden blankets by the Europeans ( this did not happen...the Spanish did that in the Americas). Maori did not understand what they were signing ( 20 years later in Kohimarama the chiefs all said how happy they were to sign the treaty and demonstrated how conversant they were about it). Maori are in touch with the earth and wildlife ( "Whale Rider" is not a documentary, and in fact have a terrible track record for conservation...Moa, Haast Eagle, Huia, Moriori and a host of other now extinct birds). Maori were a united group ( maori tribes were constantly at war with each other and the 'law of the jungle' applied). Enough?

CS, read 'Making Peoples', NZ history by James Bellich, Chapter 10

Posted on 03-06-2017 10:25 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, read 'Making Peoples' NZ history by James Bellich Chapter 10. This chapter, of 42 pages, covers the period of Pakeha Maori military conflict. James Bellich does not use the term 'rebel' at all. Also Treaty settlements, now having paid out about $3 billion have been based on the advice from professional historians that, at the time of Maori land confiscation, Maori were not rebelling against the Government , they were simply resisting land sales which the Treaty of Waitangi entitled them to do.

Captain Sensible, an example please

Posted on 02-06-2017 19:25 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, give us an example of fake history brainwashing.

CS, describing reputable historians as 'brainwashers' is extreme

Posted on 02-06-2017 19:06 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible, reputable historians have to have high academic qualifications to get a job in a university or something similar. They have to undergo examination by their peers. So what they write has to be well considered. They simply cannot write the first thing that comes into their heads. They simply cannot get away with writing fake history. On the other hand, Treaty objectors, who do not have a professional reputation to uphold, can write selective information that is not objective at all, and are accountable to nobody. These are the ones who are your make-it-up historians. If you support them you are either gullible or have a hidden agenda.

new evidence Mr Dey ??

Posted on 02-06-2017 12:20 | By Captain Sensible

"historians now tell us..." Tell us what new information has come to light that we were unaware of before. What documents have been unearthed to back up these new "findings" ?? Documented facts only please...NOT opnion. We have all heard the phrase "fake news" but in NZ we now, thanks to these Treaty troughing make-it-up 'lawyers/historians' have "fake history" and it is actually being used as a brainwashing tool in the NZ education system and all government departments.

Leave a Comment

Sorry, SunLive is no longer accepting comments on this article.

Opinion Poll

What are your thoughts on the council’s proposal to increase rates 40 per cent over the next three years?

Good, it will help pay to revitilise the city
Not good, rates are high enough now
I’m ok with an increase, but maybe not such a big one

Bay Today

Penumbra on Sunday. Photo: Joan King.

Send us your photos from around the Bay of Plenty.