New settlers

Posted on 22-02-2013 20:10 | By PLONKER

Just another wave of what had been many times before.

ancient settlers

Posted on 23-02-2013 15:58 | By [email protected]

You are right Bryan, when the maori first arrived in New Zealand, they arrived as slaves dropped off by Admiral Zheng He pirate/trader men only never ever any women. The maori bred with the women that were here before them Celts,Moriori, Waitaha. Maori never had a culture they took the culture of the Celtic people, the tattooing,the working of the green stone etc, Maori culture is Ancient Celtic culture. these Maori that have got more european blood in them than maori blood do it because there is money in it for them been maori. Ian brougham Wanganui

Ian Brougham

Posted on 24-02-2013 09:06 | By TERMITE

Agreed mate, the blood lines of Maori arrivals were immediately 50% of that on the first cycle. The obvious is that as only males arrived means that there had to be non-maori females here already. That of course means that after some 400-500 years that the blood lines of Maori are now at best 1/8th or so and less. Hardly a history that justifies all of the excuses, story telling and dreamtime since especially 1975.

apartheid NZ

Posted on 24-02-2013 09:09 | By Captain Sensible

They just want to be in the top racist tier of NZs apartheid system that gives out race based privileges to anyone with a teaspoon or more of maori blood. Meanwhile, our elected government not only allows this apartheid system but supports it.

Ian Brougham is wrong again

Posted on 24-02-2013 13:15 | By Peter Dey

Ian Brougham is continuing to write fiction which he gets from sources that no reputable historian agrees with. He has no answer to the modern scientific evidence which shows that there were no people in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250AD. All modern historians support the scientific evidence. The most recent evidence has been collected by a scientific team led by Janet Wilmshurst published in 2011. This evidence is readily available on the internet. People of Maori ancestry do not get privileges. They get measures to balance the privilege that Pakeha have of living in a Pakeha dominated society.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 24-02-2013 16:28 | By Captain Sensible

It is well documented that the maori spoke to the first european explorers about the people here before them. There have been metal tools discovered well predating maori. Everyone knows that to get a grant/scholarship from the PC lot in Wellington, the non-offensive PC false version of our history must be told...or else. As for your statement on no maori privileges...I think you need a reality check immediately. There are far too many to mention!!!

wrong again

Posted on 24-02-2013 17:04 | By [email protected]

If Poroa Pete took the time to read any of the history books When maori arrived they found fair skinned people there before them who they called tangata Whenua also before maori were Moriori, & Waitaha people the waipoua Forest stone construction and the Kaimanawa wall construction were built by the Ancient Celts some 3000 years ago. there are a lot more of non Maori constructions about. You talk about reputable historians don't agree, are those historians working for the Government. Ian Brougham Wanganui

non-Maori ancestors are not ignored

Posted on 24-02-2013 19:01 | By Peter Dey

People of Maori ancestry who pursue Maori culture are not ignoring their non-Maori ancestry. They have simply chosen to put more energy into the Maori side because of the satisfaction they get from it. Maori culture is a very satisfying and rewarding pursuit. For the benefit of Ian Brougham Admiral Zheng He's visit to New Zealand is fiction. There is no DNA record in modern Maori of any intermarriage with Chinese in the 1400's.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 25-02-2013 08:19 | By Captain Sensible

"They have simply chosen to put more energy into the Maori side because of the satisfaction they get from it. " Maybe its because Maori are the only race in NZ that receive race based privileges, favours, rights etc and so therefore by logic, the rest of us are racially discriminated against every day. That is more likely the reason. If someone is 1/8th maori, then they are 7/8ths not maori.

myths are not history

Posted on 25-02-2013 14:18 | By Peter Dey

Fair skinned people, Moriori, Waitaha, Celts are all myths passed down over hundreds of years by word of mouth. These myths are not factusal history because they can never be verified and they are contradicted by the modern scientific evidence which can be verified like DNA evidence in a criminal trial. Reputable historians spend their working lives studying and writing history and having their work assessed by other historians. They all describe Ian Brougham's views as fiction. Their books are what you find in any bookshop or the history section of any library. There is no evidence of any metal objects predating Maori. People talk as though there is but they never produce any supporting evidence. People like Captain Sensible and Ian Brougham are writing fiction because they are never able to produce any evdence to support their views, and they are never able to produce anything against the scientific evidence that proves their views to be wrong. Scientific evidence now shows clearly that Maori were the first settlers in New Zealand at about 1250 AD. Check Janet Wilmshurst for the latest evidence.

The real myths

Posted on 26-02-2013 13:30 | By YOGI

Maori DNA shows that less than a 1/4 is Maori blood, Pete the "historians" you refer to are very one eyed and that is a fact also, they are not authenic historians anyway, all they have done is a bit of self labelling, title grabbing and all that. Once you include these "facts" in your story then it quick moves into a mythilogical realm that permanently resides in dreamland!

Petes fiction label?

Posted on 27-02-2013 11:51 | By YOGI

People like Captain Sensible and Ian Brougham are writing about historical facts that has evidence in NZ and around the world that predates the earilest possible arrival of Maori in NZ, Admiral Zheng He has libraries full of documents and museums full of "real" artifacts that are carbon dated and proven as well prior to Maori being in NZ, at best 1400AD, some 2000 years after the first records of non-Maori being in NZ. The fact is here that with the limited access of Maori proponents have successfully so far hacked history of NZ to protray a history that self justifies: their jobs, funding, claims, Whatangi tribunal and a whole lot more. Itr is all self benefit and self serving.

Paroa Pete

Posted on 27-02-2013 13:52 | By [email protected]

Paroa Pete says that what I write is fiction,Here is a few bits of information. Ted nathan of Te Rora witnessed the carbon dating result on the Waipoua Forest construction it was built 2825 years ago. the kaimanawa wall in Taupo with was a temple built about 3000 years ago. In 1559 Jean Alfonse discovery of New Zealand, called us "Isle de hommes Blancs" Island home of the Whites. Juan Fernander a Spanish Navigtor 1574 said this place was inhabited by a race of white people.everywhere where maori arrive to these shores they were met by the Tangata Whenua, the 19th century maori elders said it meant "Ancient people" this only a small part of evidence for Paroa Pete to think about. Ian Brougham

Ancestory ...

Posted on 27-02-2013 20:21 | By PLONKER

So Pete, what is your pedergree? I would guess that 1/8th Maori, perhaps 5-6/8ths of European, the remainder an assortment of pacific islands and anywhere else. But there is one thing for sure General Zheng Hu's blood line will not be found.

Posted on 28-02-2013 07:35 | By ow

good to see someone daring to question the recent politically correct current version of history

First 5/8ths of SFA team

Posted on 28-02-2013 09:03 | By Scambuster

@Paroa Pete your fith rantings have already been well and truly discredited in this forum previously why on earth common sense bloggers waste their breath on your ' kutukutu ahi'only knows.

People who ignore modern science are discredited

Posted on 28-02-2013 20:56 | By Peter Dey

The further stories that Ian Brougham has written are still contradicted by modern scientific evidence and reputable historians. Stories that are contradicted by modern DNA and radiocarbon evidence must be fiction. In a criminal court, stories that are contradicted by DNA evidence are regarded as fiction. Ian provides no reputable source for his stories. The most recent history of New Zealand, The New Oxford History of New Zealand (2009), is written by 15 university history professors as co-authors. They do not support any stories about people living in New Zealand before Maori arrived at about 1250 AD. The Government online encyclopaedia, Te Ara, says that the Kaimanawa Wall is a natural phenomenon not manmade. Wikipedia has reputable historians who say that the book, '1421”, by Gavin Menzies about Zheng He bringing ships from China to New Zealand in 1421 is fiction. Neither Ian Brougham, Scambuster, Plonker, YOGI, Captain Sensible, nor TERMITE has tried to deny the results of modern science such as Janet Wilmshurst's 2011 research. Fiction with more details added is still fiction.

People are going to choose

Posted on 01-03-2013 08:03 | By kclifton

People are going to choose what they want to believe but ParoaPete seems to be the only one here who has given any valid evidence to follow. There are many reputable sources of information on our history. But again we choose to believe what we want. How ironic that today we recognise the amazing work by New Zealand's foremost historian and anthropologist, Dame Anne Salmond who has no qualms about calling M?ori the Tangata Whenua, people of this land. Interesting too, she has Celtic ancestry.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 01-03-2013 12:00 | By Captain Sensible

Have a read of "The Great Divide" and then tell me all that is incorrect. The difference between this book and your modern re-invented version of history, is that witness accounts and facts have been used Ian Wishart and make-it-up-as-you-go PC lies used to fuel the grievance industry are used by these modern PC racist academics. There is no doubt whatsoever that the maoris were not here first. The myth that they were is perpetueated for the sake of political correctness (fear of the truth) and the multi billion dollar grievance industry. Read the book and then tell us where Mr Wishart, a totally independent writer who wrote it as he researched it, went wrong.

Scam busted

Posted on 01-03-2013 14:02 | By TERMITE

Janet is definitely selective in her writings, the research a bit further afield reveals that the Maori beliefs around the Canoe arrivals in NZ were actually a reference to General Zheng Hu's ships that dropped them off here. I would guess that the seven "canoes" referred to may not have been quite right as General Zheng Hu usually had 50-60 ships in a fleet at any time.

Ian Wishart rejected the scientific evidence

Posted on 01-03-2013 21:05 | By Peter Dey

In his book 'The Great Divide” Ian Wishart put forward three main pieces of evidence for pre-Maori settlement in New Zealand. (1) Stone tools were found in the 1870's and claimed to have been found buried 5 metres deep under ancient forests. However we know that the Christchurch earthquake made 5 metre deep cracks in the ground so this is not conclusive evidence of anything. (2) Rock drawings have been found that show crocodiles and large snakes not known to Maori. Captain James Cook was also told stories of enormous snakes and lizards. However the rock drawings cannot be dated and oral stories prove nothing. (3) There was a mega-tsunami about 1400 AD that wiped out east coast settlements. However inland and west coast settlement sites were not affected so a tsunami proves nothing. Ian Wishart published his book in 2012. For the 12 months before Ian Wishart published his book the radiocarbon research findings of Janet Wilmshurst were available and contradicted Ian Wishart. He carried on and published his book as though this radiocarbon evidence did not exist. He did not even try to challenge the scientific evidence. His book is totally discredited.

Governments cop it

Posted on 01-03-2013 21:38 | By Dollie

I suggest scambuster, the 'common sense bloggers are wasting their breath' because they have a deep underlying greivance themselves that Maori are treated as a privileged race fuelled by numerous Treaty settlements that they are paying for. Further they fume that no matter what government is the the flavour of the month, the Treaty settlements keep on coming - relentlessly. Maybe they should vent their greivance to the local MP and I include Bryan Johnson in that group too.

To the rabble below

Posted on 01-03-2013 22:10 | By Crash test dummies

You all are talking around in circles here, that is typical with people from remote places in NZ everywhere else is a few decades behind Auckland, sorry I have to make allowances I guess. Here is how it is Janet's research is not research it is a selective creation from naria at best, Wishart is partly right, Pete you have it sort of with the carbon dating but Wishart did a great job based on the informaiton available at the time of writing. There is a lot of information that he hsa not referred to and there is a VAST amount that Janet does not even know about. To get a realistic view it is best to leave NZ and tour around the world looking at the verified and confirmed data of those who have nothing to gain either way from the truth of it. Can you all smoke off into your corners do your research 100% not 1-2% then come back and tell me I am right!

Non Maori blood links

Posted on 02-03-2013 19:09 | By TERMITE

There is no money in it that is why it is ignored, anyone would think the material things would have a place but not to this lenght, extent and depth of deception of the truth of NZ history?

I want it all

Posted on 06-03-2013 09:13 | By YOGI

That really is what all of this IWI stuff is about, the money, plain and simple clueless things like power, ownership of the air and other things about sum up the whole legite of the thing from start to finish.

The last Treaty settlement

Posted on 07-03-2013 02:53 | By TERMITE

That was to be compelted by 2010, now we find that the pace of filing claims has increased even more and no sign of stopping, all claims were to be in by 2001 and settled by 2010. But of course there is going to be a lot of useless nobodies on the scrap heap as soon as all the feasting all stops dead in the water. Watch the mess then.

Choosing who we are?

Posted on 07-03-2013 08:54 | By Blessed

many maori acknowledge more of one side then the other, beacause it is our Maori Relatives that raise us... I am of half english decent but my father was absent, it was my mum (maori) who raised us. Accept that our Culture is worlds apart, and it is those who stray from what being Maori is that let our Culture down. Modern technology does NOT make you a better person. I see RESPECT lacking in all Cultures today, so what does it matter who we choose to acknowledge?

Blessed

Posted on 07-03-2013 12:06 | By YOGI

Accepted comments from you as realistic, however that still does not justify claiming to be "Maori" when say an 1/8 or 1/16th blood flows, then add the fake claims history being re-writen to self justify said claims. You noted RESPECT, that dissappears really quick in these circumstances, sadly all get tarred with the same brush perhaps when a handful are propagating the crime here.

yogi

Posted on 09-03-2013 19:51 | By Blessed

what would you have us claim then? European, Irish, Italian? I know my ancestry on my maori side, as well as my European ancestors including the Steamer they came to NZ on.. this article is about people acknowledging more 1 side then the other, I only know 4 blood relatives from my English side and hundreds from my maori side, I cant claim i am Pakeha, as I am half Maori of Tuhoe decent, and i am always asked which iwi i belong to, cant win what ever we do.

Blessed

Posted on 10-03-2013 16:15 | By YOGI

Easy: 1. We are all NZers 2. Get the NZ history right, 3. Stop the Maori Affairs archeological division ripping up the real history of NZ and re-writing it with a sanitised version that suits claim filing 4. Delete the English version of the treaty out of the Waitangi Act 1975, retain the Maori version (the translate that into English (using Maori interpretation ex 1840, not the current "revised" word meanings of today) PS when you do that you will end up with the Littlewood (the original resides in the US) translation not the enacted Freeman version that was already known to be false, wrong and completely discredited as false. PS Neither you or I are Pakeha, in Maori that means "pig"! In the end I would like it that we are aware of "our" NZ history, that we all realise where we came from, do not BS the rest of us with "mythical magic mushroom" type stories that no one believes and then seek to rip all the rest of NZ off with that, don't make false claims when often they don't exist, never did and as for the remainder, most were Maori on Maori, accept that for what it is. Accept that Maori did their share of bad things to e.g. wiped out the Moriori, that others were here in NZ before Maori or Moriori evidence is everywhere for that e.g. the European skeletons ex Northland that were around 2000 years old, they were dug up and sent to the fertiliser works, Maori acknowledged that they were non-Maori at that time hence the disposal in that manner. Is that to much to ask ... ?

Blessed writes beautiful sense

Posted on 10-03-2013 22:43 | By Peter Dey

Bryan Johnson claimed that people of Maori ancestry celebrate only their Maori ancestry and ignore their non-Maori ancestry. Blessed has explained very clearly that this is a choice that people make. They do not deny their non-Maori ancestry. They simply celebrate the culture that has had more influence in their lives. Many people with Maori ancestry celebrate their Pakeha ancestry and do not push their Maori ancestry at all, like our MP, Simon Bridges. 1. People who are able to celebrate their Maori ancestry should do so because Maori culture is alive and strong and enriches New Zealand. 2. Blessed has made no wrong statements about New Zealand history at all. The only people who do not like modern history books like Michael King's Penguin History of New Zealand are people with extreme views that they cannot justify with solid evidence. 3. There is no evidence that the Maori Affairs archaeological division is ripping up the real history of New Zealand. 4. Both the English version and the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi were signed by Governor Hobson and Maori chiefs and are available to be seen in the National Archives in Wellington. These are both clearly official versions of the Treaty. 5. The modern usage of the word Pakeha is 'New Zealander of European descent”. Pakeha is not an abusive term. People who say otherwise are making a stupid argument about nothing. 6. There is no evidence that Maori have made false claims to rip off New Zealand. 7. Modern scientific evidence available on the internet for anybody to check shows that there was no one here before Maori arrived about 1250AD so there were no Moriori here to be wiped out.

Yogi and blessed?

Posted on 10-03-2013 23:14 | By TERMITE

Well now ain't that the truth!

@Paroa Pete- maori are not indigenous and never were !!

Posted on 11-03-2013 09:39 | By Scambuster

You are away with the fairies as usual. This country is only for NZers no matter what their ethnicity. People can call themselves whatever they like.There is no place here for the rorting, false claims and fabricating or manufacturing history to suit. @YOGI you are pretty well on to it. There is only one legal treaty and that is the maori version which translates back word for word to the Littlewood final draft. Article 2 refers to all the people of NZ not just maori. Here endeth the lesson.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 11-03-2013 09:48 | By The Big Tomatosaurus

Pararoa Pete says "They do not deny their non-Maori ancestry. They simply celebrate the culture that has had more influence in their lives". So electricity, the internal combustion engine, TV, cellphones, computers, schooling, medicine, government, democracy, clothing, sports etc etc all has less impact on their lives compared to canibalism, hakas, slavery, inequality, women treated as sub human, and stoneage culture. I think ParoaPete is wearing those rose coloured spactacles again!

Tomatosaurus and Scambuster

Posted on 11-03-2013 17:50 | By YOGI

Thank you for your supporting comments about the Rort inflicted upon the real New Zealanders since especially 1975 (thanks Liang and Palmer & co). To PoroaPete, you are rattling on as usual same stuff different day, you have not presented any 'facts' or evidence or where to find it. as noted this is living in fairy land for sure. In previous ramblings you have talked about modern things like 'carbon dating' so you need to womble off and seek and ye shall find a lot more than you currently do or at least are admitting, good luck in your mission of enlightenment. PS when you say that no one was in NZ pre-Maori then can you explain what or perhaps I should say "who" it was that Maori were eating out on the Chatham Islands? and prior to that on the Mainland and prior to that the North Island? Can you explain why it is that those who have claims to be Maori have Non-Maori in them, DNA tests show that there is European blood pre 1769 and that the DNZ tests show that the lineage was from mixing of the blood lines around 1400AD i.e. when Maori were dropped off in NZ by General Zheng He (he had a fleet of "ship" not canoe's and had them at least 1500 years prior to that). Sorry Pete a lot to think about isn't it, sorry about that.

Modern civilization is not Pakeha culture

Posted on 11-03-2013 21:48 | By Peter Dey

The things mentioned by Tomatosaurus such as TV, computers, cellphones, schooling, medicine, and democracy which he thinks are Pakeha culture are just part of modern civilization. They have all been created by both Maori and Pakeha and are shared by both Maori and Pakeha. They are not Pakeha culture that is unique to Pakeha. They are certainly not some gift from Pakeha to Maori. New Zealand Pakeha do not produce Japanese cars. Things like cannibalism, slavery, and stone-age culture are history that Maori have moved on from, not Maori culture today. We do not keep talking about the fact that Britain allowed slavery until 1833, and The United States did not abolish slavery until 1865. Two weeks ago I pointed out that Scambuster had not answered the scientific evidence that shows that there were no people living in New Zealand before Maori arrived about 1250 AD. After two weeks Scambuster clearly can produce no evidence to show otherwise. According to the scientific evidence (Google Janet Wilmshurst) Maori are indigenous to New Zealand. Scambuster is still unable to produce any evidence to support his claims that Maori are rorting, making false claims, and fabricating history. These claims are fantasy.

Wednesday

Posted on 12-03-2013 02:45 | By Johnnyredneck

Hi Bryan, The clan meets on Wednesday night 7pm, cherrywood arms, bring your own sheets.

Wrong end of the stick

Posted on 12-03-2013 16:27 | By YOGI

Pete I don't know what planet you are on but you seem to be saying that someone other than non-Maori brought all the "nice to have" toys to NZ, like whiskey, TAB, KFC and many other similar delicious items ... Tomatosaurus has understood it all, simple thing is that if non_Maori did not come to NZ then how would Maori be able to claim anything, like water, air, TV's cell phones, radio waves and who knows what else, Maori had no idea about anything so that means all claims since are garbage. Add to that the fact that Maori are indeed a late comer to NZ, there are absolute evidence that at least seven otehr ethnic groups visted NZ between 1500BC and 1400AD which is about when Maori were dropped of in NZ by General Zheng He. By the account given upon his return to China it is no surprise that the Chinese Naval fleet never came back this way after that.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 13-03-2013 18:30 | By Captain Sensible

I don't have time to answer all, but Maori never had schooling, equality, laws nor government, and their understanding of medicine/health was a joke.The tribe was everything and they lived in fear of other tribes. Maori have not contributed to much of the things I mentioned either. BTW, did you know that the Japanese did not invent cars? I know they make Japanese cars but have only improved on cars made by the dreaded pakeha. Janet Wilmshurst has not the definitive answer to who was here first. Why then were early settlers told stories by maori of the people here before them (ie before maori)? This lie about maori has been repeated so many times by people with agendas, that the 'modern history' that you seem to enjoy is only popular because it fuels the treaty grievance industry.

Owned nothing had nothing were nothing of value and still are !!

Posted on 13-03-2013 18:53 | By Scambuster

Wilmshurst's conclusions if any are compromised and the so called research debunked when it was first floated months ago. It has all the hallmarks of the classic case of rubbish in rubbish out.So what if NZers no matter what their background invented nothing (unlikely) one thing is absolutely plain certain parts of our population contribute nothing do nothing hold out their hands and mouth off- leeches spongers drones mouthers and net recipients whatever description you choose will fit the bill.Suffering from delusions of worth their incompetence is really mindblowing. I just wonder who these bozos might be ?? Any thoughts out there.

Wilshurst

Posted on 14-03-2013 12:42 | By YOGI

All I can add to Scambusters comments is that Wilshurst's comments have about as much substance as "The rena is going to be refloated, nothing wrong with it" blah blah ...

Radiocarbon dating evidence is proof. Mythical stories are just stories.Radiocarbon dating evidence is proof. Mythical stories are just stories.

Posted on 14-03-2013 15:18 | By Peter Dey

Scambuster, Captain Sensible, and YOGI keep going on about people living in New Zealand before Maori arrived but they have not refuted the scientific radiocarbon evidence that proves there was no one here. The New Oxford History of New Zealand contains the evidence for this that is accepted by professional historians. The most recent and strongest radiocarbon evidence was published in 2011. To find it you Google ‘Janet Wilmshurst papers” and then find 'High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia”. This evidence has been publicly available for over two years and contrary to the claim of Scambuster it has not been debunked. It would not be still on the internet if it was debunked. If a criminal has ten witnesses who say he was not at a crime and one DNA test that shows that he was at the crime then we believe the scientific evidence. Stories passed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years are just stories. They prove nothing. They are totally contradicted by scientific evidence so they must be myths not fact.

Pete

Posted on 14-03-2013 20:38 | By PLONKER

Selective commentary on carbon dating, try including "all carbon dating" evidence not just a fraction of it to suit your cause. PS the carbon dating suggests that at best Maori arrive no sooner that 1450, that is way outside the "Talk line" of hand me down stories. Sorry Pete you have Gazumpt yourself on this one!

Carbon dating

Posted on 15-03-2013 11:20 | By TERMITE

The eariest known and confirmed test results date to 600BC, there are numerous and widespread results across NZ between 350 BC and 1200 AD, with a significant concentration around 100-200 AD and all are Non-Maori i.e. not a single Maori related item exists according to Carbon Dating information and tests all independently verified that is pre 1436 AD. This imformation can not be disputed as there are so many samples at so many diffierent locations throughout NZ. So in end result PoaroaPete you correctly refer to carbon dating as a good indication of history that one can rely on, however looking at all the the available and confirmed information and data your path taken and conclusions are incorrect and incomplete. Add to that of course that the writings of Janet Wilshurst are known to be selective, they are without independant review or verification by any recognised internationally accepted authoritive person prior to going to print. This leaves her writings as unsubstantiated and lacking integrity that then means that any self respecting authoritive professional would not refer to her writings unless and until that has been achieved.

feeling sad

Posted on 15-03-2013 16:27 | By lpm67

It is really sad that there are two clear sides in this argument, but I think its time to put things right. There is evidence of pre-maori occupants of this land, Maori oral history includes this fact...my poppa (who was Maori and served with the battalion) told me some of the histories. I have even felt my own family ripped apart by this debate and I've had enough. We all belong, we all have rights and the race based funding/priviledges must stop as its causing wrongs to be committed, not wrongs being righted. I dont want to live in a country that practices apartheit under another name, I am sad my children are growing up in this mess. Bill Clinton once said on a visit here (and no I dont like the man but this makes sense):"it is not our differences that are important but rather our shared humanity". I dont hink this means we all have to give up our cultures and beliefs but rather be more accepting and caring of one another. Another thing to consider: for those who claim to be christians...we are all one in the eyes of our father!

Yogi

Posted on 15-03-2013 20:01 | By Blessed

Pakeha does not mean Pig, Poaka means Pig, Pakeha is simply 'people of fair skin' that name Pakeha is worn in my family proudly. st

FOR THE RECORD

Posted on 15-03-2013 21:01 | By Investigator

Pakeha is to many an insulting derogatory term we are all kiwis.As for carbon dating you can only date what you are given and it tells you nothing about anything else.So scientific testing of this type cannot possibly validate your claims Pete, sorry. On the other hand tests on earlier things could blow your myth to kingdom come.

Investigator

Posted on 17-03-2013 19:45 | By PLONKER

Yes I agree with you, well said.

Janet Wilmshurst is supported by the US National Academy of Sciences

Posted on 18-03-2013 12:11 | By Peter Dey

Investigator and PLONKER seem to misunderstand how radiocarbon dating works. Scientists are not given a selection of places or materials to test. They have simply gone to all the places in New Zealand known to have remains of early human settlement. Small twigs, seeds, rat bones, and seeds gnawed by rats at these places have been tested for their age. There is now no evidence from this testing of any human presence before about 1250 AD. Testing has got more accurate over recent years so earlier results have now been updated. TERMITE has questioned Janet Wilmshurst's credibility. TERMITE says her research is without independent review by any internationally recognised authority. In fact Janet Wilmshurst's research papers were reviewed and published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America which has been the independent science advisor to the United States Government since 1863. (Google 'National Academy of Sciences”). TERMITE provides no reliable source for any of his information.

The never-ending sotry ...

Posted on 18-03-2013 14:50 | By YOGI

Even though the vast majority realise the mis-truths propagated in the Waitangi Tribunal and all of it equivolent leech like appendages the end rsult here is that the fake story is what is constantly being put forward to self justify everything else. The existence of Non-Maori in NZ before Maori is well known even in Maori verbal hand me down myths so maori can not deny it even from there own past, the best part through it is all verified anyway from every other source possible in NZ and overseas. It is just that the for example legal aid feasters need to get off the taxpayer gravy train then all the trumpt up claims will stop to.

Stop wasting time

Posted on 18-03-2013 22:43 | By Dollie

YOGI, Bryan Johnson and others are bent on re-storying Maori history. If it's so true, how come successive governments do not support your ideas/research? No Government in their right minds would settle Iwi Treaty Claims if they didn't have to. You shouldn't be posting on Sunlive. You have bigger fish to fry. Go and do it.

Potte-pete

Posted on 18-03-2013 23:25 | By PLONKER

Perhaps you should take a trip down to Lake Taupo (pay your fee to the lacol Maori to put your toe in the water) and have a look at some of the anceint sites dating back some 2000 years, there are many of them but because they are "before" 1400AD or so (not 1250AD) these carbon dating results have been ignored by Janet. Now of course we can understand why easily as that does not fit in with the mythologically desired answer. janet's work sadly will in time be shown to be exactly what it is.

Paroa Pete

Posted on 19-03-2013 01:41 | By TERMITE

Good to see you back here, your presence is very much appreciated as it makes the rest of us look SOOOO good. It is a good call to refer to the US National Academy of Science as Janet's "independant verification" hahahaha. I was hoping that you would pull this 'rabbit' out of the hat and it is great you have put it up here. Just so we all understand how good this lot are one need only refer to other commentary from the US National Academy of Science on for example climate change, basically they say that it isn't happening, natural event and nothing to do with the US. So when you have an "independance" and "objectivity" of that calibre well who am I to argue ... PS I suggest you recommend to Janet that she needs another "better" reviewer here, anything will be better.

All reputable sources say Maori were here first

Posted on 19-03-2013 17:36 | By Peter Dey

YOGI is wrong when he writes that the existence of non-Maori in New Zealand before Maori is verified from every other source possible in New Zealand. The most recent books of New Zealand history by James Belich and Michael King, The New Oxford History of New Zealand written by History professors from New Zealand universities, Te Ara the Government online encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia all say that there were no non-Maori in New Zealand before Maori.

Peter Poora

Posted on 19-03-2013 20:47 | By PLONKER

Yeah Pete maori were here first ... AFTER everyone else. Michael King, perhaps you could ask him to certify where he created his stories, as I recall I found that book in the ficton section at the Library, are you sure it was Michael, perhaps you are thinking of Stephen he at least tells a much better story than what is up here from yourself and Dollie.

More wrong information

Posted on 19-03-2013 21:50 | By Peter Dey

TERMITE is wrong when he writes that the National Academy of Sciences of the United States says that climate change is not happening. The truth is completely opposite from this. Google 'National Academy of Sciences: Climate Change Is REAL” and you can read a 2010 report by the Academy which says that climate change is real and urges aggressive action to curb global warming. TERMITE is just making up false information. The National Academy of Sciences of the United States is a totally reputable body and their support for Janet Wilmshurst confirms that her research is totally reputable.

Still more wrong information

Posted on 20-03-2013 13:55 | By Peter Dey

PLONKER is wrong to say that Michael King's history of New Zealand is fiction. Michael King is the author of 'THE PENGUIN HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND” which is in the non-fiction section of any library. Penguin Books is a totally reputable publisher with much greater credibility than PLONKER. THE PENGUIN HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND says that there were no non-Maori in New Zealand before Maori arrived.

Paroa Pete

Posted on 20-03-2013 18:10 | By PLONKER

Amazing, yet more selective readeing and references, if this little saga was not playing out in NZ I would have picked that Disneyland would be where it all happened. PS the US National Academy of Science has a "master" it is the US Government and as Obama said "The US will do all possible to avoid climate change but nothing will impact the US way of life" that is in effect lip service ... a bit like Janet's recitals from the fariytails of Nania ...

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 20-03-2013 21:47 | By Captain Sensible

Michael Kings book has been proved to be incorrect and he has deliberately missed important parts out and altered quotes. The likely reason is because, as Robinson has declared, if ones research does not suit the governments required findings, the payment of any grant money is stopped. Effectively Michael King did indeed produce fiction because it has failed miserably when scrutinised by independent unbiased historians.

Even more wrong information

Posted on 20-03-2013 23:19 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is wrong when he says of Michael King's PENGUIN HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND that if research does not suit the Government's findings that funding is stopped. Michael King was not paid by Government funding to write this history book. He was paid by Penguin Books to write it because he was an outstanding historian. Captain Sensible is unable to name any independent unbiased historian who has proved Michael King to be incorrect. PLONKER is wrong when he says that the US Academy of Sciences has a master and it is the US Government. Google 'US Academy of Sciences” and it is clear that the Academy is a totally independent organisation. All members of the Academy are elected distinguished scientists. The Academy is funded by the US Government but it is not a branch of the US Government. It is totally independent of US politics and anything President Obama might say.

Captain Sensible

Posted on 20-03-2013 23:49 | By TERMITE

A question for you, What do Michael King and Paroa Pete and Janet Wilshurst have in common? Hint the answer has nothing to do with them all wearing dresses, it is something else.

ParoaPete

Posted on 21-03-2013 08:43 | By The Big Tomatosaurus

Michael King has been found wanting with his biased versions of what actually happened. He misses important pieces from quotes which completely distorts the truth. In manys eyes, Michael King and the book you refer to has zero credibility. However, he wrote PC and the grievance industry have latched onto it as a tool to keep the gravy train choo-chooing along.

PETES PATTERN

Posted on 21-03-2013 17:50 | By Crash test dummies

Certainly get clearer every day now right, Pete i recommend you try looking somewhere new, all you try to quote as real is all but real but it is not and never was. All Petes words if to believed are no better than believing that Nixon is innocent. YEAH RIGHT - TUITION ADVERTISEMENT

Anti-Maori resentment

Posted on 21-03-2013 19:26 | By Peter Dey

Making false claims to try and damage the credibility of Michael King and Janet Wilmshurst is futile. They are only two of hundreds of experts who believe that there were no non-Maori in New Zealand before Maori arrived. The New Oxford History of New Zealand (2009) agrees. Its authors include the professors of history from the universities of Auckland, Waikato, Victoria (Wellington), Canterbury, and Otago. People who reject such experts have already made their minds up. Their anti-Maori views lead them to deny objective truth. They do not want society to be fairer to Maori so they go looking for information to make out that Maori do not deserve fair treatment. Falsely claiming that Maori wiped out non-Maori before them is one way to build up anti-Maori resentment.

The style from Paroa Pete

Posted on 21-03-2013 21:16 | By TERMITE

We have all seen the same comments, same references all along, all have been completely discredited from start to finish yet the same stories kep coming back up here. One then can see the mind set is fixed like the head of an osteride, Pete please do try and see some light, it is enlightening. We all would appreciate it if you would just ask questions and so learn a lot about what really happen in NZ history, can you do that Pete?

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 21-03-2013 22:37 | By Captain Sensible

Ian Wishart is an unbiased self made historian. He is married to a maori and has no axe to grind. He just read every historical document and journal and log book and transcription he could find. He found quotes that Michael King used and noted large important parts were missing. King got away with it because nobody checked on his "findings". So King has been found to be twisting and lying to arrive at a conclusion he had already made up....being too afraid to contradict the Waitangi Tribunal bullies. His book is not worth the paper it's written on. And the new historians don't actually do any research...they just make stuff up as they go to suit another claim. Have a read of Wisharts book, (Chapter ten for example ) and you will see that the Waitangi Tribunal and their puppet academics/historians are nothing but liars and thieves. It is an absolute scandal that has been ripping off NZ for decades.

Again more wrong information

Posted on 22-03-2013 16:49 | By Peter Dey

Captain Sensible is wrong to say that Ian Wishart is a historian and that new historians do not do research and just make stuff up. Ian Wishart is a journalist who sells newspapers and books by being entertaining. He is not a historian who has spent years studying history. History professors in universities have spent their working lives doing research and proving that they know what they are talking about. They say that from the scientific evidence available there were no non-Maori in New Zealand before Maori arrived (Read 'The New Oxford History of New Zealand”). The ancient stone tools, rock drawings, and oral history that Ian Wishart presents as evidence have always been known to professional historians but they find scientific evidence more credible. Because this is the 21st century and Ian Wishart rejects scientific evidence his book cannot be taken seriously.

Paroa Pete

Posted on 22-03-2013 17:45 | By TERMITE

Sorry mate, wake up and smell the roses, the NZ Universities only get funding ex Government to print that which conforms to the desired "conclusions". This is exactly what Janet and Michael have done. The result is that government research funding keeps coming; these same stories are then used to justify anything possible after that like and especially the Waitangi Tribunal scandalous claims. Like you anyone who dares to question the desired conclusion and gravy train here of funding, legal aid feasting, Waitangi Tribunal thoughts and decisions gets slammed with being "racist" or some other equally totally irrelevant accusation for no apparent reason but without even any evidence. PS Pete, in case you have not notice Wishart's wife is Maori so stands to benefit from the windfalls ex Waitangi Tribunal, a thought for you ... why would he then write a factual book then? The reason is easy, he is telling it how it is, where as the others are preserving their lifestyle at the expense of every other NZ citizen, think about it!

Anti-Maori resentment???????

Posted on 23-03-2013 12:42 | By TERMITE

No Pete this is wrong, personally I was raised with Maori, I have no issue with Maori as such. What I have issue with is the layers of deceit and deception being layer upon layer burying honest New Zealanders in mistruth deliberately created to then self justify claims and accusations most of which never existed. Add to that the plans of a few Maori seniors to seek and obtain Sovereignty of New Zealand that is the end game here. All of this is completely against the Treaty of Waitangi simple terms that also have been butchered all for the same purpose. All you can then say is that I am racist ... you do not even know me at all. Really what this is about is you have repeated the same information a dozen times and each time the holes in it (for you) get bigger and bigger so now you pull out the 'last resort' card to play because no one else now believes a word you say, the racist card. Pete it is clear that you have run you story to long and it is time to pack it up and bury it back in the fiction section at the library where it all came from.

@ ParoaPete

Posted on 23-03-2013 15:04 | By Captain Sensible

Anyone can become an historian. The best historians are the ones who just want the truth, not some twisted lies to keep their grievance industry going. Wishart has read more transcripts and done more research than most of your "modern" historians who, in the face of conclusive evidence just dismiss it because it does not help their cause. Wishart has included dozens of quotes from maori chiefs, transcribed at the time ..word for word. Sorry Pete, I will always believe that sort of historian over the make-it-up-as-you-go historians that you favour who only quote theselves.

Help for Paoroa Pete

Posted on 23-03-2013 17:24 | By TERMITE

If you post up the same verbiage as before then we all can take it that you have been "slam-dunked", totally capitulated, RORTED out and so by absence of fact deemed to be Devoyed of fact from the start, how do you plea?

TOO LONG

Posted on 23-03-2013 19:58 | By Major Think

You don't have to be a historian to read transcripts from the 1800s to know what actually happened. The rewriting of NZ history to suit grievance claims has been going on far too long.

Nailed to the wall by the facts

Posted on 24-03-2013 09:47 | By EYESPY

Sorry mr.paroa pete your drivel has well and truly been discredited as mythical musings. Get out of the tunnel and see the light because the train is certainly coming.So far the count is 90% against your rantings.

90% ?

Posted on 25-03-2013 21:34 | By YOGI

Eyespy, you have understated that, there is only one odd ball in the bloggers department, and that hardly rates and 1% when measured.