By Chris Trotter*
Paul Goldsmith, on the “benefits” – to Maori – of colonisation. First of all, and obviously, he shouldn’t have said it. From a party-political point of view (and what other point of view should a National Party MP be taking?) such a comment merely plays to the fast-solidifying narrative of National being a stale white bread party that can’t get out of its own way when it comes to voicing outdated racial attitudes. What’s more, given the events of the week just past, National’s attitudes on race are beginning to look like the least of its worries.
As with so much of National’s recent behaviour, Goldsmith’s comments raise some very dangerous questions. The most obvious being: ‘What’s wrong with these people?’ and, ‘In what, strange, alternative universe is conduct and attitudes like these considered okay?’ Questions that lead, inevitably, to a much broader concern about the quality of National’s due diligence when it comes to candidate selection. People begin to wonder whether the reason so many National candidates turn out to be embarrassing duds, is because their general demeanour and mode of discourse is construed by the selectors as entirely unremarkable. Or, to put it more bluntly, because National’s awfulness is now a feature, not a bug. They’re all like that.
Now, back in the days when the National Party boasted upwards of 200,000 members, what National’s candidate selectors recognised as good, solid, middle-of-the-road New Zealand-ness corresponded pretty much exactly with the perceptions of the ordinary voter. Back in those days, when memories of the Second World War and the enforced egalitarianism of the trenches were still fresh, unusual and/or disturbing idiosyncrasies were much easier to spot. People still recalled the stereotype of the “spiv”: the black-market con-men who were “all Brylcreem and no socks”. Both of the major parties were tolerant of a wide range of political beliefs and priorities, but the men and women they chose to represent them all evinced a reassuring sameness.
The effective destruction of New Zealand’s mass political parties, along with the thoroughgoing de-democratisation of the decision-making structures that remained, which the introduction of neoliberalism more-or-less mandated, robbed them of their almost automatic capacity to pick the “right” sort of person to represent them. The new economic order also required the major parties to abandon their former tolerance of heterodox ideas. Ideological orthodoxy now trumped social conformity. Especially after the arrival of MMP and its backroom-assembled Party Lists, the party bosses cared less-and-less about what MPs did privately – so long as they didn’t do it in front of the cameras and frighten the markets.
And it got worse. The political culture of neoliberalism bred its own, very special, kind of politician. Just as the producers of reality TV shows like “Survivor” are careful to screen out anyone displaying what most people would consider the “normal” human traits of compassion, co-operation and honest-dealing, in favour of the selfish, the ruthless and the faithless; so, too, are political parties careful to screen out those who display an excessive independence of mind and/or a principled unwillingness to subordinate their conscience to the dictates of the party leadership. The days of so-called “maverick” MPs like Mike Minogue and Jim Anderton are long gone.
The upshot, for the National Party, was John Key and his affably cynical amanuensis, Steven Joyce. Those of an older generation may have grumbled into their single malts about the party falling into the hands of a quintessential “spiv” and his backroom Machiavelli, but nobody who mattered cared. In a world where all that counts is the ability to buy and sell, the currency trader should be king. In a political environment where the ability to fake sincerity rates as the ultimate accomplishment, calling someone Machiavelli is a fulsome compliment.
Like it or not, these were the sort of role models National was happy to present to the next generation of aspiring MPs. Unfortunately, younger generations have a nasty habit of noticing attitudes and behaviours their elders would prefer them to overlook. This propensity to model themselves on the real – rather than the ideal – may be a perverse sort of compliment to the generation in charge, but the final product, when it steps into the public spotlight all-too-often proves to be an accident just waiting to happen – as National has discovered to its cost.
The ultimate guard-rail against these political eruptions is the party’s organisational leadership. The party president, in particular, must have an especially sensitive nose for potential stinkers. It’s a huge responsibility: in effect the president, and his/her colleagues on the party’s executive committee, must substitute their own judgement for the mass party’s homogenising instincts. In this regard, the incumbent National Party President, Peter Goodfellow, must be adjudged a costly failure. To put it crudely: far too many stinkers have been given the nod. National urgently requires a more sensitive pair of nostrils.
Not that Goldsmith is one of the stinkers, far from it. He’s one of National’s few remaining conservative intellectuals. As a politician, he is refreshingly open about expressing his opinions. The problem he has, however, is a very obvious lack of the common touch. Goldsmith is the very opposite of Simon Bridges – a National politician who has not the slightest difficulty with the diction of the ordinary Kiwi. The bookish Goldsmith, one suspects, would struggle in the average public bar: too concerned about the facts; not concerned enough about the tone.
Factually, Goldsmith has a case to make. Colonisation has not been an unequivocal evil. What it has done, however, by forcing them to respond to its ever-increasing impact, is divide Maori.
Since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the internal divisions within Maoridom have resolved themselves into three broad factions: the Loyalists; the Adapters; and the Rejectionists. For the Loyalists, the British Crown has remained a symbol of power and authority over and above the treacherous settler state. Having secured its protection under Article Three of the Treaty, successive generations of Maori leaders have continued to appeal to the only institution which has been willing to defend them from the “democracy” of the Pakeha majority.
Strong believers in the hereditary principle, and inheriting all the aristocratic mana of their forefathers, they have found it hard to believe that the British sovereign – the ultimate rangatira – reigns over her subjects but does not rule them. Even today, many Maori leaders evince a profound mistrust of the democratically elected legislature, and show a decided preference for working with the executive and judicial branches of the New Zealand State. Cabinet, and a sympathetic judiciary, have taken the place of well-disposed Governors and the Church Missionary Society.
The Adapters continue to seek an enduring modus vivendi with the world of the Pakeha. Their original vision of the 1840s and 50s: of the Pakeha in their place, the tangata whenua in theirs, and the Treaty over them all, continues to inspire a significant minority of contemporary Maori – not least the authors of He Puapua.
More numerous, however, are those for whom the Treaty and the Maori tribes’ heroic resistance form just one part – albeit an important part – of their family heritage. For two centuries they have taken the Pakeha’s tools and used them to construct a new identity. One-hundred-and-fifty years after the Sovereignty Wars, and with the genealogies of tangata whenua and tau iwi inextricably intertwined, they think of themselves – and call themselves – New Zealanders.
For the Rejectionists, however, the British Crown turned out to be nothing more than the glittering bauble which ruthless settler politicians raised above their heads as proof that their government’s bare-faced larceny would soon enjoy all the security of legal title.
The rejectionists cast aside Crown and Treaty in favour of a return to the old ways. One thinks of Rua Kenana, lost in the mists of the Ureweras. Or of the fiercely independent Maori communities of Northland, the King Country and the Waikato and Whanganui Rivers. Among these proud tenders of te ahi kaa – the home-fires of inextinguishable possession – the incantations of their forefathers continue to work their magic, and, in the very bones of the land, they hear the echoes of Rewi Maniapoto’s last, defiant challenge: Ka whawhai tonu matou, ake ake ake! – “We will fight on, forever and ever and ever!”
Goldsmith’s mistake was his failure to appreciate that, for the moment, it is the rejectionists who have the floor.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
135 Comments
Yes National are a bit of a train wreck at the moment with too many arrogant little pr**ks getting selected to represent them, but it is wrong for Chris to lay into them for stating their view on Maori issues.
It is the job of the opposition to state their view on issues, even contentious ones. That way we get to measure up who to vote for. Or would he prefer silence? I don't think that would lead to a better outcome for the country.
The first topic in this column rings very true indeed. What is telling is the enormous fall off of party membership. National is not alone in this. And CT’s point about the resultant diminished selection pool of candidate credentials and talent, plus the spin and non transparency that MMP has introduced, is telling too. Stephen Joyce illustrates this. Straight into parliament, straight into cabinet, straight into the big three. That wouldn’t happen in a large existing pool of talent.
This is what "The Spectator" thinks of NZ's Maorifcation. Most local media will not criticize the govt like this because they have to behave to get the next $55 million hush-money handout.
The fight for New Zealand is now underway
One country, two governments
Amy Brooke. The Spectator. 22 May 2021
In spite of government opposition, a radical report proposing destroying New Zealand’s democracy, unintelligibly called He Puapua (let’s not give it an English title, or people may begin to wonder what is in it) has been released, because of an appeal under the Official Information Act (OIA). A previous, heavily redacted version was finally released but only as a result of constant pressure.
He Puapua argues for this country to be predominantly governed by individuals of part-Maori ancestry and for those of part-Maori descent — no matter how minimal. A separate parliament and civil service is to govern those identifying as Maori, with, as usual, no definition of who can legitimately be regarded as Maori — in a country where intermarriage has been the norm for 200 years — and where full-blooded Maoris no longer exist.
Its intent is for separate Maori health and court systems; Maori ownership of the foreshore and seabed (now already happening); separate Maori wards on councils; Maori governance over water and every other possible sphere of influence — such as the reassignment of the entire conservation estate under the Department of Conservation (DOC).
This two-systems approach has already been adopted, with health reforms dominated by a separate Maori Health Authority able to veto government decisions relating to everybody’s health. Under Jacinda Ardern’s supervision, Labour has already pushed legislation through parliament to ensure the public no longer has a say with regard to Maori wards on councils. Moreover, it is envisaged that progress between basically two governments would be overseen by the Aotearoa Monitoring Group, currently chaired by the Maori sovereignty activist, Margaret Mutu. Larded with increasing numbers of untranslated Maori words and phrases — making it virtually impossible for most New Zealanders to understand — it has been well described as "a masterpiece of deceit". No reference is made to the fact that a previous Independent Constitutional Review Panel examining radicalised Maoris’ call for a Treaty-based constitution found widespread opposition to the proposal, with 96 per cent of submissions opposing it, ‘and 97 per cent vehemently opposed to local government Maori seats’.
Incredibly, some former politicians are simply shaking their heads at Jacinda’s supposed ‘naïveté’. This manipulative politician, adept at projecting compassion and well-being, flashing her famous smiles, and talking at great length —while managing to say almost nothing relevant in response to questioning — is dodging accountability by switching to vigorous and indignant Hollywooding, claiming she hasn’t read the document.
Who actually believes her, given that while she claims the report hasn’t found its way to the Cabinet table and refuses to state her view on its recommendations, her ministers are already implementing some of its communications? Her current ploy is to brush off criticism of this pernicious, fundamentally racist document by accusing its critics of ‘playing politics’. So much for her promise of transparent government.
As historian Mike Butler has pointed out, the plan to implement He Puapua was slipped in under the radar, without troubling MPs or talking to the media. That Labour did not campaign on this in either the 2017 or 2020 elections invites the charge of sheer duplicity.
What we are being now faced with is apparently prevarication on a grand scale — from the same determined woman who has consistently handed over every possible advantage, with preferential taxpayer funding, to perennially obsessed part-Maori agitators.
This same adroit politician appointed the controversial Nania Mahuta to crucial portfolios imposing thoroughly undemocratic directions. Mahuta could not possibly have done so without Jacinda’s backing. And if the Prime Minister’s hand is being forced here, who is the puppeteer? To whom does she owe allegiance?
While she has described herself as socialist, in fact, socialism is regarded as the smokescreen of communism — to tactically present a more palatable face to the public. Moreover, destabilising a democracy is regarded as a communist coup.
We should be under no illusions. This attack on this country is well underway, as is the Maori sovereignty takeover, assisted by a Prime Minister so foolishly dismissed as merely naive, but who, on the actual evidence — her ongoing promotion of divisiveness and separatism — is bad news for New Zealanders and undermining national unity.
What about government-related official institutions embracing the ridiculous? To simply laugh off what is happening would be a big mistake in relation to the nonsense recently produced by Christian Hawkesby, assistant-governor of the Reserve Bank, now to be known as Te Putea, no doubt to bring it into line with what pre-European Maoris used to call it before their colonist oppressors arrived.
Hawkesby’s recent address to the Institute of Directors centred around the claim that Tane, the God of the Forest, watches over all bank employees. ‘Each day as we walk through the security gates to enter our Wellington offices, Tane Mahuta (New Zealand’s oldest living Kauri tree) ‘looks back at us as a reminder of our responsibility… which is to ensure that “Tane will not wilt and lose mana”.’ And so on.
Could we ever have envisaged such nonsense — a Reserve Bank official calling on his staff to worship a giant tree to make sure it doesn’t wilt? It’s been pointed out that, ‘Mr Hawkesby is responsible for formulating monetary policy, providing equity in financial markets, managing the foreign reserves, operating interbank payment and settlement systems, and circulation of currency’.
It is not his job, if undertaking a personal journey into the psychobabble of animism, to inflict what many regards as less than rational thinking on bank employees. He should be required to resign. Simply calling what he said ridiculous is only a start. His New Age nonsense and arguably racist activism is conduct unbecoming – not only unacceptable – but with no place in government.
And yet this primitive underpinning of what should be rational advocacies is becoming increasingly pervasive — as with activists’ success in opposing specific project developments because of the claimed presence of taniwhas (mythical Maori monsters).
With New Zealand’s democracy now white-anted by racist policies, we will also deservedly become a laughing stock if our politicians and bureaucrats continue to pay obeisance to primitivism. However, as Einstein observed, ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’
From the Spectator and BFD.
The link for The Spectator article
https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/06/time-for-the-lying-to-stop/
Regardless of your opinion on this article - if a NZ journalist, commentator or politician spoke or wrote ideas along these lines they would be condemned and censured or censored.
"Full blooded Māori no longer exist" reminds me of people who like to claim that the Moriori were here first (in an attempt to undermine Māori). It is utter rubbish and has no basis in fact. It is highly likely that there are an enormous number of 'full-blooded Māori' in New Zealand. It is ALWAYS spouted by white people who've probably had minimal interaction with Māori in their lives and have no understanding of the culture and relationships within.
Easy enough to prove one way or another with DNA testing. My guess is very few pure blooded Maori but happy to see the evidence prove me wrong.
However the point is meaningless - my wife is 100% a very specific Papuan tribe with detailed knowledge of her forebears however a DNA test says she is about two thirds Melanesian and one third Asian despite there being no family history of outsiders - it is not that surprising with Malays trading around Papua for hundreds of years and various past epidemics (one in the 1880's wiped out 90% of the speakers of her language) being particularly severe on pure-bloods. If you speak Te Reo, know the legends and stories, know the traditions then you are Maori even if adopted as a baby.
BTW agreed about Moriori - I'm a recent immigrant with little knowledge of NZ history but even I knew long before I came to NZ that there was no original Moriori ethnic group that were displaced by Maori but I still hear that myth from otherwise intelligent people. That's one reason why NZ needs history taught at school.
See Jarad Diamond's book - 'Guns, Germs, Steel' or re-sort of those three words. The Maori is the name for Polynesians living on the main NZ Islands (a name they did not use until pakeha arrived) and Moriori is the name for the Polynesians living on the Chathams. The Moriori were Maoris who settled in the Chathams - their culture changed from typical Maori (less warlike) because of the tough environment. Diamond is very persuasive on how environment changes culture.
Miscegenation-interbreeding between different races. When we trace our own family, my wife's grandparents and my grandparents were all white, of varying English, Irish and Scottish extraction i.e. typical second generation NZers. When we look forward, of the approximately one hundred descendants ( and partners) of those original eight, at least sixty can claim some Maori connection. But what is of greater significance is that none of them " identify as Maori". If present trends continue there will be no such thing as " a full blooded Maori", but most people will be " part Maori". At this point any advantage in claiming Maori heritage should disappear. Indeed, it begs the question; why are we making such efforts to benefit those who identify as Maori when soon everyone will be able to make that claim? Maybe it will be a bit like the communist system, where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
One thing is for sure, is this current government is creating a separatist, communist, debt ridden state, which will ultimately destroy New Zealand. Its ok to disagree without the threat of being called a racist, which is how your viewed if you are non Maori. Its a tired old line which is often accompanied with aggression and then a Haka!!
Try looking at it without your pre-held prejudice.
Trotter doesn't often got there, but this time he's close. Very. All governments inherit the result of all others, and have an Overton Window; don't blame them too much. And don't use old propaganda like 'communist' - ask why and what that was before spouting.
What we do - what we have always done - is seek to acquire resources. That includes energy resources, once slaves and animals, currently (and temporarily) fossil-energy. We denigrate others who compete for those resources, by way of allowing ourselves to outmaneuver or fight them. Colonisation since 1800, has been because Europe was resource-depleted. They annexed the whole planet. Your 'communism' (to be clearly understood as different from the regime Stalin ran, for instance, that was Autocracy) was merely an attempt by those who were disenfranchised, to gain a piece of the pie. The put-down patter originated in the global-northern Elite - a fine example of propaganda swallowed by the ignorant mass.
The problem now is different - and this is where Trotter isn't yet up to speed. We have extracted energy and resources so successfully, they we've irrupted (an ecological term) and are now seriously overshot. We've also built a servicing infrastructure - almost everything to do with cities and suburbia - which is unmaintainable. Those pigeons are coming home to roost, but only being reported as one-offs.
So the task of government, from here on in, is to push towards sustainability as far as Overton will allow (we're late, and getting later in that regard). So some of their nationalising moves will be wrong, their growth agenda is 100% wrong, and their understanding of 'poverty' - along with words like productivity, sustainability, invest, fund - is flawed. Fatally so. But this mob are less flawed than the remnant neolibs - they are just dinosaurs - as the article suggests.
“an attempt by those that were disenfranchised to gain power.” true enough, but it wasn’t merely. Historically it wasn’t and isn’t unique either. In this example it wasn’t just an attempt, it was successful, but it was all about Bolshevism and little about communism. The latter was purely a vehicle in that it offered alternative mechanisms for government. Yes the various empires that our world has seen certainly all have grown and marched forth on the quest for resources, but within that big wheel there are many many other spinning wheels all about personal ambition, naked power, and the despotism, vendettas, slavery, genocide that has featured since before recorded time. Golding in a micro world, illustrates just how an empire is created, ie who gets to lead the strongest tribe, and then drives it forward.
Europe in 1800 was not resource depleted. Not only North Sea oil lay untouched but so did most of the coalfields - developed during the development of the railways (Britain's greatest ever engineer made more money from accidentally discovering coal while building a cutting than he did from being the main originator of the railways age). Europe's problem was over-population - OK it grew massively after 1800 but given the agriculture of that time it was over populated - ref: Hans Rosling's statement about 80% of Swedes in 1840 being in abject poverty and the Irish famine when Ireland had a bigger population than it does now.
Most of your comment I'd agree with. More emphasis not on exporting colonies but exporting unsustainable population growth.
An interesting view from an academic on the new history curriculum for schools. The power executed from NZ parliament was/is not all bad.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/education/125353748/aotearoanz-history-c…
It’s a wonder this article was allowed through the Stuff Filter.
Thanks for the link. This debate is about the balance of significance between a Te Reo oral culture meeting an incoming English literate culture. The fact that we debate here in written English is a relevant fact. Of course NZ could transition to a Te Reo speaking society with emphasis on speech (who needs writing now we have voice texts on social media). However a few years ago my son's school was unable to find a teacher of Maori studies - apparently none were graduating in Auckland. Unless large numbers of young Maori decide to become teachers NZ will remain a culture based on English language and probably English traditions. For good or bad.
Lapun - sorry, but at the time, by their standards and at their consumption rates, it was.
Hence “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Yes, the oil was still there - but wasn't part of their infrastructure. Same goes for the fall of the Roman Empire, and modern Rome. The Empire still fell on EROEI and resource-depletion and entropy terms. The lesson is still applicable.
pdk,
A heavy cold and cough has confined me to the house for the past 2 weeks. I have spent a lot of the time reading material on EROI and plowing through Clugston's Blip. To say that its conclusion is bleak would be a gross understatement. Ironically, i finished it on the day I watched the final part of Fight For The Wild-NZ's progress towards a predator free country by 2050. Should Clugston be right, we will have long given up that fight for the fight for simple survival. As I finished it, the image I had was of a work by Hieronymus Bosch depicting Hell. And yet.... I am not ready to just accept his version of events. Of course, the basic premise, that we are busily chewing our way through our NNRs is hard to dispute, but perhaps Youngquist's date of 2100 will be more accurate.
As yet, I cannot accept that my young grandchildren have no future.
pdk,
A heavy cold and cough has confined me to the house for the past 2 weeks. I have spent a lot of the time reading material on EROI and plowing through Clugston's Blip. To say that its conclusion is bleak would be a gross understatement. Ironically, i finished it on the day I watched the final part of Fight For The Wild-NZ's progress towards a predator free country by 2050. Should Clugston be right, we will have long given up that fight for the fight for simple survival. As I finished it, the image I had was of a work by Hieronymus Bosch depicting Hell. And yet.... I am not ready to just accept his version of events. Of course, the basic premise, that we are busily chewing our way through our NNRs is hard to dispute, but perhaps Youngquist's date of 2100 will be more accurate.
As yet, I cannot accept that my young grandchildren have no future.
I think the average kiwi is actually sick to death of the Maori and women drum beat growing so loud its all you hear or see during waking hours.
Every new government appointment has to be Maori and or female, preferably both.
Meanwhile the country burns, people can't afford roofs over heads, gangs grow in numbers and power, cbd's become crime centers.
Bill English needs to make a come back and sort this shit out, do it for the country, we need saving.
All hail Lord Bill our saviour!
From the great church of Dipton.
Of all the National MP's he was one of the better ones IMO, I even liked that when he became leader he wasn't that great at it because he wasn't good at lying through his teeth.
But to think he's going to sort the country out is delusional.
As to the average kiwi being sick to death of the Maori and women drumbeat, I think that's only 1zb and the northern club...
Kate for context.
Go back to the 2 year old Stuff opinion item, that has contribution from Goldsmith & Kelvin Davis writing his own words too.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113919524/tuia-250-celebration-…
Politically, National are flying over the zone, hence the step up in flak JC and others copping.
The funny thing here is the comments.
The comments are 2 years old!
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/113919524/tuia-250-celebration-…
Thank NewsHub for the digging to make old news new news
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/colonisation-a-good-thi…
Chris covers his bases by being clear:
Factually, Goldsmith has a case to make. Colonisation has not been an unequivocal evil.
Then blames (facts) for dividing Maori.
What it has done, however, by forcing them to respond to its ever-increasing impact, is divide Maori.
This weekend would have been a good time to have an "on balance conversation". Leadership has been found wanting, all round.
- like where were these 2 years ago?
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/rawiri-waititi-marama-d…
Newshub, ringing every drop out the interview but it really seems an upside down story.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/paul-goldsmith-accepts-…
Mind you its a handy distraction about what the interview was really scheduled for:
Education:
Associate Education Minister Jan Tinetti admits white privilege is 'theme' of teaching resources, but not in curriculum
- & how does one teach the curriculum?
Yes, you use resources....
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/associate-education-min…
Tuesday lunchtime.
News only msm website to list this story, and squeeze another day out of reporting it.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/national-labour-mps-rea…
This is alot of A B testing.
Remember. This is from the guy who can't count!
Pre Budget announcement by what's his name. He claimed Robo's budget blowout was unsustainable!
Nekminit!
Anyway, what was he bleating on about this time? Something about how Mowrees have got it so good?
I guess he's not up to speed yet with Stats NZs reports then?
“The ancient Sumerians, the creators of the first civilisation, told a wonderful myth about its origins. It was, they said, a devil’s bargain. It offered the noblest ideals of humanity but it also brought violence, greed and destruction. All this is civilisation the Sumerian god tells Inanna of Uruk, who will take it back to her city, and thence give it to the world. And if you wish its benefits, he goes on, you must take all its qualities.” – Michael Wood, In Search of the First Civilizations (1995.)
Trotter says Goldsmith has a case but should not have said it.
It's become a sad country when a valid view should not be expressed.
Worse, in health and edcutation if you expressed such a view, there are people who have the job to destroy you.
We used to have rights.
Perfect - next time you are in the islands you can ask whether they want a bunch of outsiders to come in and take over most of their land and degrade their environment in exchange for a higher GDP.
In fact, scrap that, what would it take for you to accept, say, 15 million Chinese people moving to New Zealand and taking over? Obviously English and Christianity will be beaten out of you and your descendants, but you will have access to better widgets in the future.
You didn't quite answer the question - how much would your living standards have to raise for you to accept a complete takeover by another people? I forgot to mention the disease, but it's safe to assume quite a few people you know will die in the process - surely worth it for the greater good.
Would you do it for flying cars and a fully functional housework robot? How about for a 120 year life expectancy?
Interesting - I'm not sure many would give up their culture, lifestyle and environment so readily.
I don't particularly have a problem with what Goldsmith said, but I do find it concerning how readily people tend to gloss over the reality of colonisation. Huge numbers died, land was stolen and degraded, kids were beaten for speaking their own language or expressing their culture. This has left scars. Difficult to weigh up against the apparent benefits of modern infrastructure - which may or may not have developed anyway through trade rather than colonisation.
It's surely a perplexing question.
Tribal wars also contributed to loss of life, slavery etc.
As for the beating of kids for language there's no excuse at all for that. I guess because teachers could not speak it this presented issues.
It's interesting now that learning Te Reo is compulsory for all even though they may have no Maori heritage and that Labour has killed the Bill to teach other languages in junior schools including Pacific languages even where the communities are largely represented in schools.
It is quite possible to absorb the ideas of other nations without being absorbed by their populations. Japan is a prime example.
True. Much of Japan's culture has a debt to Korea and China. And also Western culture in more modern times. In many ways, they've surpassed all they borrowed from.
And the Japanese are not the first peoples of Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ainu_people
You imply 100,000 killed (are you claiming 2 out of three were butchered?). I strongly doubt it - it was epidemics and infectious diseases that wiped out those without any Asian or European blood. Read about the main epidemics: smallpox, typhus, yellow fever, scarlet fever, cholera but add in diseases that Europeans often survive such as measles. Then add TB and venereal diseases. Clearly villages disturbed by warfare would have been more vulnerable. Those Europeans who arrived after 1840 lived twice as long as if they had stayed in Europe and they simply had very big families.
Apologies I was not meaning to 'play it down'. In the Scottish Highlands when you burned down a village you may have killed nobody directly -(soldiers returning home with clean conscience) but the villagers died from exposure if there were no local caves and then of starvation unless it was springtime. I'm sure the same occurred in the Musket and the Maori wars - the strong fighters may have survived but the elderly, children and the weak died (of course they didn't write the history). However even then for every wiped out village by warfare there would be many more killed by epidemics and that went on well beyond your time period - my guess up to WW1. Smallpox kills the strong and the weak. It helps explain why so many of the early generations of educated Maori became doctors. However it should be possible to work out whether I'm right in thinking epidemics caused the decline in the Maori population (from 150k to 50k) or was it warfare by reading original sources - warfare is usually documented; smallpox wasn't.
To say the country could remain untouched by colonization by someone is unrealistic. It was different times then where military might ruled.
What would we look like now if it wasn't the poms? Look to other colonies for clues to how it may have turned out under someone else. French into Vietnam, Portuguese and Spanish into South America, etc.
So without colonization what would NZ look like now? It is easily proved to be impossible to answer. Far too many other factors. First look at all the countries that were debatably not colonised over the last 200 years (Haiti, Liberia, Thailand, Tonga, etc) and see how they have performed. Then imagine you were alive 200 years ago and were guessing how your descendants would end up - if you were Korean the answer would be either living well fed and relatively free in a modern developed country or starving and oppressed in the North. In other words there are many circumstances far more significant than colonisation.
Since everyone alive today is only so by the combinations and permutations of past events, and would not have existed otherwise, then yes, if you see being alive better than not have existed at all, then it is a good thing on balance.
And that goes for whether your ancestors were on the right or wrong end of any interaction with others be it Europeans, or a neighboring iwi seeking utu.
You raise a good point. The $380 million for Maori housing in the latest budget, how is that to be allocated? Would a 1/6 Maori that doesn't maintain a connection with any marae get a look in? What about someone with a much lower % but is active on a marae? Asking for a friend.
Just claim to be Maori. I have an acquaintance who has done so for 60 years - he was born in South Africa of Scottish and Swedish origins and arrived in NZ fifty years ago. Who makes the decision? Has any Maori authority or NZ court the right to insist on a DNA test?
It does matter - when my mother died 15 years ago in Scotland the Scottish health service provided an overnight nurse but the English didn't. Fortunately although English she was living in Scotland at the time and the difference to me and my father is impossible to overstate. Repeat for emphasis - impossible to overstate.
So when you are ill choose the health service that suits you best - they will never throw a sick person out of a hospital because they aren't speaking Te Reo.
Well if claiming to be Maori because that benefits you in some capacity is now "a thing", things have really turned.
As for your Saffa/Scot/Swede mate, he would be exposed in under 20 seconds and I call BS on that story. What is his hapu, who does he whapapa back to, is he on the Maori land registry or electoral roles? I could go on.
Tangata whenua - of the land. We all link back to our blocks and our marae.
To be fair not a mate - haven't seen him for a couple of years - but he is not doing so to gain any advantage; simply to screw the system.
You have given several definitions of a Maori:-
1. Can name a hapu (or is it have a hapu that can name him/her)
2. Google spells is Whakapapa [a line of descent from one's ancestors; genealogy]. Can list a whakapapa.
3. On Maori land registry
4. On Maori electoral role.
How many of these four do you think are required to obtain a choice of health providers? Who decides the hapu and whakapapa are valid? How is that person given authority to ban a patient from being treated?
I suspect many elderly Kiwis with Maori heritage will transfer to the Maori electoral roll simply to get maximise their health benefits.
BTW - my objection doesn't apply to my family - from passport and many govt records I'm an immigrant and so are most of my family - the 3 grandchildren are far too dark skin colour with Melanesian frizzy hair to ever be accepted as Maori.
Which reminds me by my wife's Melanesian PI traditions I have Maori relatives who used to live with us - her cousin's daughter (Australian/Melanesian) is living in Auckland with a solid indisputable Maori husband - she has two almost adult children both born in Australia - one is Maori and the other Samoan - if they were in a road accident would the family be split into two groups for medical treatment?
I've no problem with two competing health systems and I don't mind how they are identified (Maori/Pakeha is not a bad split) but for both fairness and practicality they will both have to be open to all members of the public.
I wasn't criticising you, simply making the point that anyone spuriously claiming to be Maori to gain advantage will be exposed. For example MPAS schemes for Maori and Pasifika university admission include interviews, requirement to be fluent in your whakapapa and references. Tangata whenua is a thing, most Maori have direct links to our tribal lands and are registered online and only transferrable to whanau.
Most but not all. There is a difference between an applicant for university and an ill person waiting in A&E. Interested in your reference to Pasifika - my 3 daughters all are in close touch with their pacific roots - they speak Tok Pisin and as they say 'hear' their parents native language(s). However our son who arrived in NZ aged 6 and determinedly non academic has very little knowledge of his background (his Mum knows) and has no language other than English. He is in his twenties now but when in his fifties he would fail your criteria of 'interviews, requirement to be fluent in your whakapapa and references' - but being dark chocolate brown with frizzy Papuan hair might be a give away.
Our sister in law returned from Australia some years ago and registered on the Maori electoral roll because she felt so inclined. She admits that she has no Maori ancestry, but thought it would be a hoot to identify as Maori. She has since changed to the main roll. Imagine what would happen to the Maori cause if everybody elected to identify as Maori.
I'm not sure that this is a useful lens for reviewing history. You must be similarly appreciative of Hitler, Mao, and especially Ghengis Khan given his well spread genetics, as without their actions you wouldn't exist. I doubt you'd find many moral philosophers taking up this theory.
Depends why you are reviewing it? And why stop there with your list? How about the Romans, Vikings, England vs the Scots, or one Maori tribes utu over another etc.
There seems to be this parallel universe thinking that if something had or hadn't happened in the past with your ancestors, somehow you as an individual would be in a better position financially today, and if you are not then there is a person who is alive today that is responsible for that.
OK I'll be more specific. It's not a useful lens if you're reviewing history with the aim of assessing whether things were good or bad, or even for identifying the various impacts. I'd suggest that most of the reason for reviewing history, other than interest, is to gain some insight on how we should act now and in the future, so I'd say these are important goals.
It might be a useful lens if your goal is to shut down discussion and not have to think about consequences.
The discussion and the context Goldsmith was asked has nothing to do about consequences, it is about trying to frame a narrative about past history to justify today's revenge equivalent so money can be taken from people today who never directly colonized anyone to be paid to people today that were never directly colonized.
Goldsmith was trying to make an argument that colonisation was a net benefit. Negatives include death, stolen land, degraded resources, and positives include democracy, modern comforts, eventually a more peaceful society etc. There is an argument to be had about whether the plusses outweigh the negatives, although obviously he's stepped on what is unfortunately a cultural landmine.
If his argument has been that colonisation was a net benefit because otherwise none of us would be alive and another set of similar, but different, people would be existence instead, he'd have been laughed out of the interview.
It is a loaded question whether the past is a net benefit. They could have as easily asked whether pre colonization land conquests between competing Maori tribes was a net benefit?
But you miss the point, the people that put forward the question of a 'benefit' or not, are making the case, that they as an individual would have been better of if colonization had not happened, and to say anything else is to relieve them of an excuse to better their present position by way of compensation as a victim. Their very logic asks you to run a parallel universe for comparison. One in which they are better of without colonization and the second, their present position where they are relatively worse off because of colonization.
The answer to them, is a given, rhetorical, a moot point, to which Goldsmith's reply, while factual, is not what they want to hear.
But as CT says, 'More numerous, however, are those for whom the Treaty and the Maori tribes’ heroic resistance form just one part – albeit an important part – of their family heritage.......they think of themselves – and call themselves – New Zealanders.'
Yep.
Some claim nothing about the Treaty. Some folks' language is shifting from racist, to colonizers to now white supremacists.
And the foe now global: its the "international colonial white supremacist infrastructure".
And political:
... [your] understanding of the nature of interconnected white supremacist organisations and conservative political parties...
https://mobile.twitter.com/tinangata/status/1401747867702730754
3. Colonial racism against Māori is underpinned by economic interests and buttressed by an international colonial white supremacist infrastructure.
New Zealand’s economy is built off the back of abused Māori rights. Stolen Māori land and water has underwritten the farming sector, the horticulture and viticulture sector, the energy sector, the tourism sector, fisheries, forestry – simply put, returning what has been stolen would have catastrophic consequences for New Zealand’s very colonial economy. This is also the case in other colonized nations, many of whom are only too happy to collude with neo-imperial forces such as the US military to police apparent invasive crimes elsewhere whilst ignoring their own. Internationally renowned scholars and economists have acknowledged that the world’s global economy is built from two major injustices – black enslavement and Indigenous dispossession. Full restorative justice would cause global economic instability and an unprecedented shift in global power structures. Power protects itself, and so the white supremacist colonial machine works not only domestically, but also internationally to protect its political and economic interests. For an insight into how this works I thoroughly recommend the following documentary. In fact…. this really is an important documentary for understanding the nature of interconnected white supremacist organisations and conservative political parties
'Internationally renowned scholars and economists have acknowledged that the world’s global economy is built from two major injustices – black enslavement and Indigenous dispossession.'
I'll see your renowned scholars for a Thomas Sowell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrfjUzYvPo&t=277s
Yep, Sowell is brilliant.
And Gad Saad here highlighting the problem of bad ideas.
https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/1621…
The West’s commitment to freedom, reason, and true liberalism has never been more seriously threatened than it is today by the stifling forces of political correctness.
Nailed it in the middle of the article. The reprobates have all looked at those from the top of the National government and simply acted as they saw them. It's not not how the likes of Key and English see themselves or wish to be seen and yet there it is.
The secondary theme of Goldsmiths comments, no doubts they had gains but they also had an enormous amount to offer in resources and skills. Colonisation simply ignored any value in that, and added the injustice of not upholding the law that should have seen all as equals and partners
This government, through its lack of transparency, if not outright secrecy, has formented this issue and taken it to the brink. They have no idea of ramifications; remarkably like a bunch of landlubbers on rough waters on a yacht, pulling this halyard and that one, not knowing what they do. The problem now though is that 15% you mention, has got the bit between the teeth, and will not be deterred from pulling the issue over the brink. The government has not just opened the pandora’s box, they have too thrown away the lid. . God defend New Zealand.
Interesting choice for an alias, LD. I see little difference between the concept and application of whakapapa Māori determining representation in matters of governance and the concept and application of hereditary peerage determining representation in the House of Lords.
He Puapua, or the 'three spheres' approach seems to mirror the bi-cameral UK Parliament - to 'spin' this idea of constitutional change as separatism is disingenuous when better/improved checks and balances in governance (as a means to improve collective wellbeing) is what it aspires to.
“aspires to?” perhaps but that is both simplistic and shallow reasoning. History is littered with the failure of aspirations, good intentions, eg The League of Nations. The problem right here now is the the topic of racism which is undeniably, justified or not, at the forefront of opinion on any matter concerning indigenous rights, and from every point of the compass. Invariably that word now appears in the first sentence of any relative comment. And its use is decidedly distortive and inflammatory.Almost impossible to develop cogent and cohesive policy when the high speed and penetration of today’s communications and media are tagging it instantly to a very wide and sensitive audience specially one already partisan.
We have a separatist health system in NZ already - the public and the private health spheres. Your admission, or not, to each is determined by 1. employer or 2. wealth. Nothing to do with racism but separatist none-the-less.
I really don't understand what all the paranoia is about.
I understand Maori system representing 15% of the population can veto the other system for everyone else.
Also private Healthcare INSURANCE isn't funded by the government even though the holder is paying twice. Therefore no one else should have a say.
You're not suggesting that private Healthcare is exclusively for rich non Maori so its an irrelevant argument. It's open to everyone in fact many employers fully fund it.
If anyone should be complaining its retirees who are priced out of it.
I understand Maori system representing 15% of the population can veto the other system for everyone else.
Where do you understand that from - have you got a link to the proposed legislation? I've heard that claim I believe from National but haven't read whatever the official/government document is that they are referring to. It would be good to put the provision into context.
And thanks, I think that is a begrudging admission that we do indeed have an existing separatist health system!
It is not at present, a separatist health system legislated and supervised by the government. What you are comparing to is simply health insurance, a contract between an individual and an insurer, for which there is a premium which the former pays like any other insurance policy. It is distinctly different and as simple as that.
Kate, it is made clear in a Cabinet paper put out on 13 April 2021 in the name of Andrew Little that the MHA will have an explicit power of veto (as in clause 52 below):
https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-04/cabinet-minute-cab-21-…
Cabinet paper:
52 Similarly, turning to national service planning, in relation to hauora Māori it will also be critical that there is clear and meaningful Māori leadership and involvement. My expectation is that the Māori Health Authority should have a co-lead role in relation to national planning and in designing the key operating mechanisms that the system will use. This would require the Māori Health Authority to jointly agree national plans and operational frameworks (e.g. the commissioning framework), with clear approval rights including an ability to exercise a veto in sign-off. Having such an approval mandate would ensure the Māori Health Authority is engaged early and constructively, and that critical operations are aligned with a clear hauora Māori vision, embed Māori priorities and mātauranga Māori systems, and enable mechanisms that give life to local Māori leadership in the health system.
You need to stop making things up and do some reading first. I'm not Māori but was once referred to a Whānau Ora health provider because they were the best outlet for the particular type of test my GP recommended. Just as the private health system contracts the public health system. The new model seeks to provide culturally-appropriate care depending on need and/or preference for health provider. It is not a separatist system but one which aims to improve access and responsiveness to whānau Māori.
And I note you didn't link me to official information on the 'veto' aspect of your earlier point.
https://www.nzma.org.nz/media-releases/doctors-back-a-fully-empowered-m…
You are doing some heavy lifting in here Kate. Aotearoa New Zealand is poorly serviced by primary health organisations and the changes that are being proposed and at some stage implemented will shake up the delivery of services to all of us here, not just Māori. Additionally, engaging Māori in having the ability to support Māori in improving access and hopefully improved health equity the better for all of us.
The question itself is nonsense. There is no separatist health system (i.e., different hospitals, different specialists, different ERs), or different eligibility in the way you are imagining.
https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-04/htu-factsheet-hauora-m…
As National's education spokesperson Paul Goldsmith might want to recommend Mr. Trotter’s article as a source of good comprehension questions if such is still taught in our schools….
e.g.
Is reference to the 35 National Members of Parliament elected by 738,275 New Zealanders as “stale white bread” itself racist?
“In a political environment where the ability to fake sincerity rates as the ultimate accomplishment…” - who could Mr Trotter possibly be thinking of?
Join the Young Nats at university. Wear a suit and tie every day in your law lectures. Go to National Party functions and fawn over your local MP. Get a job in the electorate office. Serve your apprenticeship doing PR for a tobacco company or gun importer. Suck up to the elderly folks who make up the local party membership until it's time for the sitting MP to retire. Waltz into Parliament.
If you are willing to do the above, you can be a National MP, no matter how sociopathic, smarmy, sleazy or entitled you are. The kind of person who sets off alarm bells on first meeting as being untrustworthy, and possibly malevolent, can waltz through the National Party selection process. Something tells me that this will not change with Judith Collins at the helm.
Oof, this comment section is like overhearing the chinwags at the local Ryman Healthcare.
'These greatly advantaged Māori', with all of their support.
The sheer ignorance in literally describing colonisations impact on a people while at the same time without skipping a beat honestly believing they are an advantaged group. Staring into the eyes of people who honestly believe white privilege doesn't exist.
Good comment.
Anyone who has studied Organisational Change Management will recognise the resistance to the rise in Maori and Pasifika participation in NZ society is common in a cultural change phase. Mostly the older Tauranga Ratepayers generation. Aotearoa is a Polynesian country and if that's a problem for you, everyone has a choice. I have noticed the current generation of Maori youth are far more fluent in Te ao and Te reo, far better educated and pushing for change a lot harder than my generation.
Chris, you categorised Maori as: "the Loyalists; the Adapters; and the Rejectionists."
These are all European terms showing a European bias. Those you call rejectionists were loyalists to their own people and the rangatiratanga. Those you call loyalists or "friendly Maori" were generally known to Maori as kupapa. Judge them as you will. Almost all Maori (there were a few exceptions) were adapters of European agricultural systems, industry, technology, religion and legal principles.
"For the Loyalists, the British Crown has remained a symbol of power and authority over and above the treacherous settler state. Having secured its protection under Article Three of the Treaty, successive generations of Maori leaders have continued to appeal to the only institution which has been willing to defend them from the “democracy” of the Pakeha majority."
Give me just one example of a case in which the British Crown in the person of the monarch has ever defended Maori or given them justice. You cannot. So who are you talking about here as defenders of Maoridom? And why do you claim that Pakeha democracy has been the problem? You should know that every step towards democracy, has been of benefit to Maori, and every step away has been to their cost. An end to monarchy and the establishment of a genuine democracy is the primary condition for the final emancipation of Maori and Pakeha alike.
"many Maori leaders evince a profound mistrust of the democratically elected legislature, and show a decided preference for working with the executive and judicial branches of the New Zealand State."
Are you forgetting that in New Zealand the executive is supposed to be chosen (though not appointed) by the legislature and that the judicial branch is only there to interpret and enforce the will of the legislature? Do you think that Maori are unaware of this constitutional mechanism (or for that matter the more nuanced ways in which the realities of executive power conflicts with the appearance of legislative authority)? Is there any constitutional way that Maori leaders could "work with" the legislature apart from lobbying parliamentarians or select committees? Do you have any reason to assert that they have not done that?
"Strong believers in the hereditary principle, and inheriting all the aristocratic mana of their forefathers, they have found it hard to believe that the British sovereign – the ultimate rangatira – reigns over her subjects but does not rule them."
Quite wrong. Maori society is not hereditary to anything like the extent of the British monarchy. Rather Maori constantly looked to the monarch because they assumed that the monarch had mana. A person of mana, a rangatira, is true to their word. Victoria had promised to protect the rights of Maori, and it was assumed that she and her successors would honor that promise. This wrong but forgivable belief that the Crown would act with mana has nothing to do with the largely fatuous distinction between ruling and reigning.
What is the point of all this? To drive a wedge between Maori and Pakeha? To divide and rule?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.