PDA

View Full Version : More Racism and Separatism:



B.M.
27-06-2012, 10:37 AM
“The possible legal challenges are an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing in July dealing with claims by the Maori Council and others, and from Central North Island iwi Ngati Tuwharetoa which has claims over the lakes and rivers used by Mighty River and Genesis.
Finance Minister Bill English would not rule out putting shares aside to use in a settlement which was likely to happen after the asset sales process.
But Mr Key said it was more likely Ngati Tuwharetoa would receive cash to buy shares or the Government itself would buy shares on the open market to give to the iwi”.

HERE (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10815744)

Bobh
27-06-2012, 11:17 AM
I have ask was this a conscience vote or not? It does appear that it was a party vote. If it was a conscience vote then the outcome may have been different. I do think that National are doing themselves a lot of harm.

SolMiester
27-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Not sure how Maori expect to have ownership of the lakes and rivers....just yet more hand out fodder if you ask me

gary67
27-06-2012, 01:13 PM
It's been an interesting debacle. I don't and have never been a National supporter.

They did campaign on asset sales at the last election, they did get a majority and now everyone is up in arms. Like hello were you all asleep at the election it's way too late to stop asset sales now. Maori always said they don't support asset sales but if it went ahead they would be back cap in hand so nothing new there either.

Maori history says that when the canoes arrived there was already a race of pale skinned people here and yet they claim indigenous rights, go figure someone's telling porkies

Chilling_Silence
27-06-2012, 01:31 PM
It's BS if you ask me .... They're milking the handouts for all they're worth! Hate to say it but it's one thing I actually agree with Winston Peters on (Even though he's still a jackass if you ask me)...

Nick G
27-06-2012, 02:00 PM
I don't get the Maori can even claim to own the rivers. A letter to the press a while ago highlighted it. It said something like

The water in NZ rivers comes through rain. Water from other countries evapourates and air currents push it towards NZ, where it comes back down as rain.

The letter was better written but the point is the same - how the hell can the Maori claim to own it.

Nick G
27-06-2012, 02:01 PM
It's BS if you ask me .... They're milking the handouts for all they're worth! Hate to say it but it's one thing I actually agree with Winston Peters on (Even though he's still a jackass if you ask me)...

Yep, he's a jackass. I agree with him on that and immigration.

B.M.
27-06-2012, 02:27 PM
It's been an interesting debacle. I don't and have never been a National supporter.

They did campaign on asset sales at the last election, they did get a majority and now everyone is up in arms. Like hello were you all asleep at the election it's way too late to stop asset sales now. Maori always said they don't support asset sales but if it went ahead they would be back cap in hand so nothing new there either.

Maori history says that when the canoes arrived there was already a race of pale skinned people here and yet they claim indigenous rights, go figure someone's telling porkies

Let me try and explain what happened Gary.

Firstly, over 1 million eligible voters (26%), like myself, didn’t vote. HERE (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10769246)

Why? Because as I’ve said before It was like voting for which form of Cancer you’d prefer to die from. In short, the standard of Political Party & Politician was so poor we couldn’t bring ourselves to support any.

So, when it came to Asset Sales, National had by no means a majority or mandate to push ahead. Indeed, they had to rely on the ACT party and United Future party with one vote each to get the Bill through the House.

ACT and John Banks were predictable, especially after the Key & Banks tea party, but that still meant they needed United Future’s vote from Peter Dunne.

In the end Peter Dunne forsook his principles in favour of political expedience and voted with the government.

This meant that the whole matter was decided by a politician belonging to a Party with 0.6% of the votes, (just 13,443 in total), and I’ll bet a big proportion of them didn’t support their Leader on this one. :lol:

I figure he will have sealed his own fate now and that of the United Future Party as well. ;)

Oh the irony of the Party name. :lol:

Gobe1
27-06-2012, 03:10 PM
It's BS if you ask me .... They're milking the handouts for all they're worth! Hate to say it but it's one thing I actually agree with Winston Peters on (Even though he's still a jackass if you ask me)...

+1

EDIT: I didnt vote as there was no one worth voting for. I believe i had my say.

prefect
27-06-2012, 07:48 PM
I voted for National because I am a businessman.
Business people don't vote or shouldnt vote for the commy labor and green party.
Although I getting very jittery how close the National government is getting with the moaris party.

Winston001
27-06-2012, 08:02 PM
Shouldn't we stand up and be proud? NZ was the first nation to grant universal suffrage, the first to give an old age pension, and the first to acknowledge the rights of people living here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People whom we accidentally killed with measles, smallpox etc etc.

We've been at the forefront of caring for the individual members of our society leading the world.

In the entire planet of 6.7 billion, Canada is the only other nation which has come close to New Zealand in social issues and recognising indigenous people's claims. Try being an aboriginal or Torres Strait islander in Australia. Indeed even being a refugee - that will take you back to the South Africa of the 1900s. Barbed wire camps. The Germans picked up on that 30 years later...

hueybot3000
27-06-2012, 08:24 PM
So the solution is to bend over and take any kind of bs claim the maori's can think up and then give them all they want. And the more they are given the greedier they seem to get.

gary67
27-06-2012, 09:08 PM
Let me try and explain what happened Gary.

Firstly, over 1 million eligible voters (26%), like myself, didn’t vote. HERE (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10769246)

Why? Because as I’ve said before It was like voting for which form of Cancer you’d prefer to die from. In short, the standard of Political Party & Politician was so poor we couldn’t bring ourselves to support any.

So, when it came to Asset Sales, National had by no means a majority or mandate to push ahead. Indeed, they had to rely on the ACT party and United Future party with one vote each to get the Bill through the House.

ACT and John Banks were predictable, especially after the Key & Banks tea party, but that still meant they needed United Future’s vote from Peter Dunne.

In the end Peter Dunne forsook his principles in favour of political expedience and voted with the government.

This meant that the whole matter was decided by a politician belonging to a Party with 0.6% of the votes, (just 13,443 in total), and I’ll bet a big proportion of them didn’t support their Leader on this one. :lol:

I figure he will have sealed his own fate now and that of the United Future Party as well. ;)

Oh the irony of the Party name. :lol:

and there you have half the problem not voting was akin to saying I don't care National do what you want, crying foul when you didn't use your power of vote is too bad. Yes the other parties were not worth much but a vote for them would have made dictator Keys policies harder to push through.

and as for those clowns who voted for Banks well they should be shot for treason

Iantech
27-06-2012, 11:06 PM
and the first to acknowledge the rights of people living here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People whom we accidentally killed with measles, smallpox etc etc.

We've been at the forefront of caring for the individual members of our society leading the world.

In the entire planet of 6.7 billion, Canada is the only other nation which has come close to New Zealand in social issues and recognising indigenous people's claims. Try being an aboriginal or Torres Strait islander in Australia. Indeed even being a refugee - that will take you back to the South Africa of the 1900s. Barbed wire camps. The Germans picked up on that 30 years later...

And the last to acknowledge that there were people here before the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People who were killed and eaten by the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving.

Sure Eskimos are indigenous, so are Aborigines but unless Maori are denying their own heritage, they are not indigenous to New Zealand, they came in canoes from the Polynesian islands. I'm just as indigenous as a Maori, only difference is my ancesters had a bigger boat.

B.M.
28-06-2012, 07:23 AM
and there you have half the problem not voting was akin to saying I don't care National do what you want, crying foul when you didn't use your power of vote is too bad. Yes the other parties were not worth much but a vote for them would have made dictator Keys policies harder to push through.

and as for those clowns who voted for Banks well they should be shot for treason

I suppose you’re suggesting I should attend Church also, even though, like Political Parties, I don’t trust any of them.

However, I do agree with one or two others on here that Winston Peters is making the most sense at the moment.

B.M.
28-06-2012, 07:34 AM
And the last to acknowledge that there were people here before the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People who were killed and eaten by the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving.

Sure Eskimos are indigenous, so are Aborigines but unless Maori are denying their own heritage, they are not indigenous to New Zealand, they came in canoes from the Polynesian islands. I'm just as indigenous as a Maori, only difference is my ancesters had a bigger boat.

+1 :thumbs:

When I was at school the teaching was that the only two Indigenous Races were the American Red Indian and Australian Aborigine.

Now days there are a number of definitions of Indigenous People depending which World Organisation you choose to believe. :groan:

R2x1
28-06-2012, 08:08 AM
Well, some groups are more indigent than others. ;)

prefect
28-06-2012, 08:25 AM
We have been too kind to the ethnics and they paid back our kindness by being greedy.

Chilling_Silence
28-06-2012, 08:55 AM
I suppose you’re suggesting I should attend Church also, even though, like Political Parties, I don’t trust any of them.

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

I'm with gary67, point is you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You didn't vote, you're not part of the solution, you effectively null and void all bitching rights (Which you're pretty good at and seem to do a lot of) because when it came time to vote, you didn't want to get off your ass and make a difference. Therefore, you are part of the problem.

I'm not saying your viewpoint is wrong, I'm just saying "Tough luck, it was bound to happen because when push came to shove, you didn't make your voice heard, yet you seem to feel you have some sort of vindictive right to complain because you didn't get your way in the first place".
Suck it up.

B.M.
28-06-2012, 10:36 AM
I'm with gary67, point is you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You didn't vote, you're not part of the solution, you effectively null and void all bitching rights (Which you're pretty good at and seem to do a lot of) because when it came time to vote, you didn't want to get off your ass and make a difference. Therefore, you are part of the problem.Suck it up.

Well you’d better tell that to a million others out there that don’t believe in choosing between evils either.

SolMiester
28-06-2012, 11:03 AM
And the last to acknowledge that there were people here before the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People who were killed and eaten by the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving.

Sure Eskimos are indigenous, so are Aborigines but unless Maori are denying their own heritage, they are not indigenous to New Zealand, they came in canoes from the Polynesian islands. I'm just as indigenous as a Maori, only difference is my ancesters had a bigger boat.

Quite right, I am sick to death of the apologists who continue to bend over and take the BS we are feed by people who went from stone age to modern living in 100 yrs. Hey, keep your quaint mythical story's for the kids at bedtime, there is no use for them nowadays.

Winston001
28-06-2012, 03:17 PM
And the last to acknowledge that there were people here before the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving. People who were killed and eaten by the people who were here prior to our European ancestors arriving.

....unless Maori are denying their own heritage, they are not indigenous to New Zealand, they came in canoes from the Polynesian islands. .

With respect your point escapes me. Are you saying that no human culture can claim to be indigenous? Homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread out from there which means all of us have emigrated to other countries.

That took 500,000 years and in that time humans evolved slightly differently in each part of the world. As a race we developed local cultures which add immense colour and diversity to the total mix. Should we respect those cultures or simply subsume them on the basis that might is right? We do not organise our social-democratic society that way which you can be thankful for.

Gobe1
28-06-2012, 03:57 PM
With respect your point escapes me. Are you saying that no human culture can claim to be indigenous? Homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread out from there which means all of us have emigrated to other countries.

That took 500,000 years and in that time humans evolved slightly differently in each part of the world. As a race we developed local cultures which add immense colour and diversity to the total mix. Should we respect those cultures or simply subsume them on the basis that might is right? We do not organise our social-democratic society that way which you can be thankful for.

Well Winston i guess the Africans can claim to be indigenous as they didnt sail there, so could the Abbos in Ozzy, probably some more.

Chilling_Silence
28-06-2012, 05:00 PM
We've been at the forefront of caring for the individual members of our society leading the world.

In the entire planet of 6.7 billion, Canada is the only other nation which has come close to New Zealand in social issues and recognising indigenous people's claims.

While I partly agree, you have to wonder when the line will be drawn in the sand and the Govt will just say "Enough is enough.".
Remembering that it's a two-way street, we brought more than just gunpowder to the Maoris. Show me them still living in huts and maraes without using our "21st century electricity" and medical care and the likes? I don't see them giving us that back...

Lurking
28-06-2012, 06:19 PM
With respect your point escapes me. Are you saying that no human culture can claim to be indigenous? Homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread out from there which means all of us have emigrated to other countries.

That took 500,000 years and in that time humans evolved slightly differently in each part of the world. As a race we developed local cultures which add immense colour and diversity to the total mix. Should we respect those cultures or simply subsume them on the basis that might is right? We do not organise our social-democratic society that way which you can be thankful for.

Read an article in The Press about dinosaurs' having roamed the earth for 150,000,000 years, those 90 tone beasts must have squashed themslves into extinction, mind you it may have taken them a long time in birthing proccess, similar to an elephant taking 4 years.

The same thing would have applied to the human population, see chart attached.

So where are all the fossil remains for all this bs.

There must have been a lot of Separatism going on back then too.

Lurking.

plod
28-06-2012, 06:42 PM
While I partly agree, you have to wonder when the line will be drawn in the sand and the Govt will just say "Enough is enough.".
Remembering that it's a two-way street, we brought more than just gunpowder to the Maoris. Show me them still living in huts and maraes without using our "21st century electricity" and medical care and the likes? I don't see them giving us that back...Do you honestly believe without the pakeha, Maoris would still be running around in grass skirts?

R2x1
28-06-2012, 07:34 PM
Well, wandering slowly around then?

Lawrence
28-06-2012, 07:42 PM
Maori will have to sharpen their negotiation skills http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10816066

Been so use to everyone bending over for them

Cicero
28-06-2012, 08:28 PM
Well, wandering slowly around then?

Spot on K9, running is an unfamiliar word to those lads.

Plod, if they had not been discovered, I doubt they would have waked over to Australia.:groan:

Metla
28-06-2012, 08:44 PM
Do you honestly believe without colonisation, Maoris would still be running around in grass skirts?

They would be at pretty much the same level as Tonga, Though their mismanagement skills would mean they would have been stripped of all their assets, and no doubt they would be in a constant state of fighting, coups would be the norm as in Fiji, either way the country would be bankrupt, dirt poor and most probably in ruins.

globe
28-06-2012, 09:26 PM
crying foul when you didn't use your power of vote is too bad.

+1 for that,

and my god isnt there alot of crying...like a blinkin' stuck record.

Iantech
28-06-2012, 11:00 PM
Do you honestly believe without the pakeha, Maoris would still be running around in grass skirts?Yes, take a look at Native New Guinea (not Papua NG) which have seen very little western interference or some of the tribes deep in the Amazon.

Without European or any other people coming to NZ, Maori would still be in the stone age, they wouldnt have known anything different. In the time they claim to have been in NZ, they hadnt even invented bows and arrows (which were used about 15,000 years ago), so the chance of them ever actually developing into a civilised society is practically nill mostly due to isolation (and low mental ability).

What would have changed? By now they would have spread out accross the whole country, they would have killed and eaten the last of all New Zealands bird life and mammals, the stronger tribes would have over-run the weaker ones, raping the women and killing the remaining men and boys and eating them. There would still be tribal warring, throwing sticks and stones at each other, oh, and lets not forget running around in grass skirts, poking their tongues out and doing the haka during and after births, deaths, marrages, catching fish, raping women, killing a rat, taking a crap, catching a fish etc etc (which I bet they didnt actually do).

prefect
29-06-2012, 08:06 AM
We only have to observe what happens in South Auckland and other bad areas at the present to work out what would have happened in the past.

paulw
29-06-2012, 09:41 AM
Yes, take a look at Native New Guinea (not Papua NG) which have seen very little western interference or some of the tribes deep in the Amazon.

Without European or any other people coming to NZ, Maori would still be in the stone age, they wouldnt have known anything different. In the time they claim to have been in NZ, they hadnt even invented bows and arrows (which were used about 15,000 years ago), so the chance of them ever actually developing into a civilised society is practically nill mostly due to isolation (and low mental ability).

What would have changed? By now they would have spread out accross the whole country, they would have killed and eaten the last of all New Zealands bird life and mammals, the stronger tribes would have over-run the weaker ones, raping the women and killing the remaining men and boys and eating them. There would still be tribal warring, throwing sticks and stones at each other, oh, and lets not forget running around in grass skirts, poking their tongues out and doing the haka during and after births, deaths, marrages, catching fish, raping women, killing a rat, taking a crap, catching a fish etc etc (which I bet they didnt actually do).

Also add to that if anyone else other than the British had colonized NZ the Maoris would still be living in grass huts a bit like the rest of the pacific island still do..

prefect
29-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Also add to that if anyone else other than the British had colonized NZ the Maoris would still be living in grass huts a bit like the rest of the pacific island still do..
All I can say is the moaris are blardy lucky it was the englanders than colonized them instead of the frogs or krauts.

Iantech
29-06-2012, 03:48 PM
All I can say is the moaris are blardy lucky it was the englanders than colonized them instead of the frogs or krauts.Or Japs !! (although its getting that way anyway in places)

kahawai chaser
29-06-2012, 08:46 PM
Ref: Iantech..

- Why many maori from north are generally lighter than say east coast/Rotorua. Must be more than than natural concubine integration from British settlers. Parihaka might come to mind - but down south.
- Low mental ability? can you clarify that... How - You think they drifted to NZ without some foresight of navigation? Made some fine traps, natural medicines, flute instruments, tattoos (- all of which have been somewhat replicated/adapted/perhaps admired today by niche companies and non maori - British Robbie Williams? Some adaptations of artworks I saw in Irish flea markets of locals selling them.
- Some advanced industrialized countries with the best minds committed the worst atrocities ever, that are etched in history forever. I think even Britain according to this BBC article. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/pogromyork_1.shtml)
- Bows and Arrows kind of reminds of how american natives must have been ridiculed...Cowboys and Indians...Another underclass?
- Separate marriage or birth certificates for Maori until 1961. Separate unwarranted class of people? Not racism?
- Yes grass skirts bandwagon - use to hear that in middle class primary school days. Cheeky kids (often recent British immigrants) poked tongues at the few maori kids. So the tongue poking survived, sometimes as sheer humiliation. Never goes away that one.
- Did not other cultures up north, burn forests, strip gum, slaughter whales and seals, without much to show today? Fact it's barren in some areas. Well the Kumara got cultivated up North... fortunately survived for many to enjoy.
- You are right about your stone age to present day....Another one that never goes away. I guess some cultures, races, ethnic groups, etc are fortuitously more inherently superior or advanced than others.

nerd89
30-06-2012, 01:11 AM
When you vote for a pack of unprincipled politicos, you get exactly what you voted for.

Iantech
30-06-2012, 02:39 AM
I think the difference between Maori in appearence is as different as in any race. While there is no proof, some say the major differences in Maori is because they bred with the people that were here when they themselves arrived. Back in the early days of European settlers, some reported there were Maori on the East coast of the North Island with red hair (I suspect more 'ginger' than red), and that in some local tribes, the Maori people had a longer, slender nose and thinner lips (more European features than pacific island). Where did these differences come from? Was it natural breeding or was it because of some breeding with another race? More DNA testing would be required to confirm anything conclusive.

Low Mental Ability - The low ability to learn knowledge - that does not mean they didnt learn anything, of course they did. But when the first European arrived, Maori were still in the stone age and without outside interference, I doubt they would have evolved to much further in 200 yrs or so. Even during European stone age (5000 ~ 10,000 yrs ago roughly), they still had navigation (stars), hunted, fished, had tatoos etc etc.

Sure there is a following of Maori art and culture, there is also a big following of Celtic art and culture, American Indian and probably many others, all as unique and as fascinating as each other.

Bows and Arrows have been around a very long time, only recently (since Europeans arrived in Northern America) have they been associated with 'cowboys and indians' (too many buffalo bill, daniel boone and davy crocket books :) ).

The earliest potential arrow heads date from about 64,000 years ago in the South African Sibudu Cave. By 16,000 BCE flint points were being bound by sinews to split shafts. Fletching was being practiced, with feathers glued and bound to shafts.

The first actual bow fragments are the Stellmoor bows from northern Germany.They were dated to about 8,000 BCE but were destroyed in Hamburg during the Second World War. They were destroyed before carbon 14 dating was invented and their age is attributed by archaeological association. The oldest bow in one piece, are the elm Holmegaard bows from Denmark which were dated to 9,000 BCE. High performance wooden bows are currently made following the Holmegaard design.

Around 3,300 BCE "Ötzi the Iceman" was shot through the lung near the present-day border between Austria and Italy and was mummified. Among his preserved possessions were bone and flint tipped arrows and an unfinished yew longbow 1.82 m (72 in) tall.His arrows had spiral feathers, which spun the arrow in flight and tend to give a straight flight despite any small asymmetry.


Not sure what you are meaning about seperate birth/marriage certs etc for Maori, doesnt everyone have a seperate birth/marriage cert?

Maori did use Kauri Gum and had many uses for it, fresh gum was used as a type of chewing gum (cant imagine it would taste all that good), it was also highly flammable and used as a fire-starter, or bound in flax to act as a torch. They also burnt and mixed it with animal fat making a dark pigment for tattooing apparantly. It was also made into jewellery, etc.

I dont know how much they actually 'dug' for it, maybe scratched around just under the surface for it, but not the full-scale rooting up of the place that the European did. I think there would be a lot more of it around today if it was a big trading comodity such as greenstone.

Maori would have burnt and cut down forest/scrub, but only to increase settlement/farming areas or for building etc, there would also have been a lot of natural fires - Southern Maori say in early times they could see the glow of fires in the skies at night for weeks/months and say it was the burning of the bushlands that were once in Central Otago, not sure how true it is, there used to be bush in Otago and there are still small pockets of it and in some remote areas high in the mountains you can see the remains of old tree stumps. How long ago it actually disappeared or how, who knows. I'm sure natural fires were common in the rest of the country as well.

I doubt what the Maori cut down/cleared would have actually made a great difference (maybe over time it may have), but I think our forests only really started getting decimated since European arrival when saw-milling came along etc.

Some say as we are such a young country we have no history, but we have a really interesting history when you get into it of both the Maori and Early European people and how the country and people developed. And yes, European have done alot of damage to the country in the past (sealing, whaling, flax cutting, coal mining, saw milling, gold mining, etc etc) and the human race will continue to damage it in the future as well - they call it 'progress' .

I still think there is an earlier history than what we currently know (or are being made aware of) in NZ.

B.M.
30-06-2012, 08:45 AM
When you vote for a pack of unprincipled politicos, you get exactly what you voted for.

Exactly, but some on here think you should support these cretins by voting for them or loose your right to complain about them.

I liken the present Political Party’s to the Gangs. You know the Mongrel Mob, Black Power, Filthy Few, Hells Angels and so on. (You choose the individual association). I don’t support any of them, but one or two on this forum argue that I should therefore loose my right to criticise them.

However, I draw comfort from the fact that over Million others examined the Party’s manifestos and decided to stay home because they couldn’t support any.

So I guess the onus therefore lies with those who voted. :D

B.M.
30-06-2012, 08:57 AM
I still think there is an earlier history than what we currently know (or are being made aware of) in NZ.

HERE (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/waipoua_fs.html) maybe?

WAIPOUA FOREST STRUCTURES.
"The following photos of dilapidated structures were taken on 11th November 2000. These are a few examples of registered structures, designated as purpose built by archaeologists, which were mapped by position, described and recorded for posterity. The information derived was considered so sensitive that it was then labelled "restricted" and not to be viewed by the general public until the year 2063".

Why the embargo????????? :confused:

gary67
30-06-2012, 10:02 AM
read

to the ends of the earth, did the Greeks come to NZ before the Maori by Maxwell C Hill

I'm not saying they did is evidence they might have

prefect
30-06-2012, 10:10 AM
HERE (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/waipoua_fs.html) maybe?

WAIPOUA FOREST STRUCTURES.
"The following photos of dilapidated structures were taken on 11th November 2000. These are a few examples of registered structures, designated as purpose built by archaeologists, which were mapped by position, described and recorded for posterity. The information derived was considered so sensitive that it was then labelled "restricted" and not to be viewed by the general public until the year 2063".

Why the embargo????????? :confused:
What a pile of rocks that would have taken a few hours to assemble is proof of a higher civilization? I have seen these so embargoed my ass.

Twelvevolts
30-06-2012, 10:57 AM
While I partly agree, you have to wonder when the line will be drawn in the sand and the Govt will just say "Enough is enough.".
Remembering that it's a two-way street, we brought more than just gunpowder to the Maoris. Show me them still living in huts and maraes without using our "21st century electricity" and medical care and the likes? I don't see them giving us that back... Typical racist BS - and you're supposed to be a moderator.

Chilling_Silence
30-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Exactly, but some on here think you should support these cretins by voting for them or loose your right to complain about them.

No you still pretty much do lose your right to complain. These so-called "unprincipled politicos" are going to get in either way, but in the instance of this election specifically you had two choices:
1) Vote National to sell off your assets
2) Vote Labour / Greens to not

Country voted National, assets are going to be sold. You don't like it, tough luck, because you didn't vote for Labour / Greens, you're now responsible through your lack of action, when you could have made a difference. You chose apathy, you've made your bed, now you lie in it.

Chilling_Silence
30-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Typical racist BS - and you're supposed to be a moderator.

You're saying they had electricity before settlers arrived?

mikebartnz
30-06-2012, 11:21 AM
Typical racist BS - and you're supposed to be a moderator.
What you replied to wasn't racist at all but you like running around labelling everyone a racist.:groan:
I will ask you again. Have you ever personally been invited onto a marae and by that I don't mean as part of your work.

mikebartnz
30-06-2012, 11:29 AM
Maori would have burnt and cut down forest/scrub, but only to increase settlement/farming areas or for building etc,
Wrong as large areas of bush were burnt to chase out the Moa. In actual fact the Maori eleminated as much bush as the early settlers and both sides often had fires which got out of control.

Myth
30-06-2012, 11:35 AM
I must say; there are a lot of whingers, racists, and experts in this forum. Often they are the same person.

I did have to laugh at the irony of one of these experts on Maori who has this as his signature:
"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else."

Regards the indigenous pale-skin that were here before the Maori... how do you know these pale-skins were not Maori? Were you around? Can you verify that the original people were not Maori. As mentioned already; if one were to actually take the time and look at the differences within "Maori", you might notice that Ngapuhi are a lot darker skinned than Ngai Tahu. What's not to say that Ngai Tahu were here already; and Ngapuhi came in after? But, I wasn't there. This is pure speculation. There are others in this forum who were here at that time so know all the facts.

Those who also know all the facts are also aware that non-Maori people are not know for their war-mongering among tribes/nations. The Holy Crusades, the Holocaust, the assimilation of the Native American indians, aborigines, Maori were not as a result of a pale-skinned people. Maori are the only "tribe" known for rape/pillage/death within the "civilized" time of colonization.

And the non-bleaters (aka non-voters) among us know that if they had had their say come election time, National would not have been voted in, MMP would have been overturned, and Peter Dunne would not be a hero.

Cest la vie...

(oops, is that a european term? I dare not use a non-euro term in a forum full of non-racist experts)

Nick G
30-06-2012, 12:35 PM
Wrong as large areas of bush were burnt to chase out the Moa. In actual fact the Maori eleminated as much bush as the early settlers and both sides often had fires which got out of control.
+1. In fact, the Maori cleared even more bush than the settlers did. They built their Pa on top of a hill, the cleared all the nearby bush so attackers couldn't hide in it. There were a lot of Pa's, and so a lot of the bush was cleared by the Maori.

And their talk about protecting native birds is also BS. They didn't care about keeping a viable population of animals and birds. They bought rats, pigs, dogs et all with them, which greatly harmed some species, and hunted others to extinction (the Moa being a fine example).

prefect
30-06-2012, 12:36 PM
Typical racist BS - and you're supposed to be a moderator.
Lol the most racist anti white, pro criminal rights person in the history of internet posting.
Hello pot.

prefect
30-06-2012, 12:38 PM
+1. In fact, the Maori cleared even more bush than the settlers did. They built their Pa on top of a hill, the cleared all the nearby bush so attackers couldn't hide in it. There were a lot of Pa's, and so a lot of the bush was cleared by the Maori.

And their talk about protecting native birds is also BS. They didn't care about keeping a viable population of animals and birds. They bought rats, pigs, dogs et all with them, which greatly harmed some species, and hunted others to extinction (the Moa being a fine example).

The Canterbury plains are a result of the bush burning they did early on. The carbon dating of the stumps is around 1450.

Nick G
30-06-2012, 12:58 PM
The Canterbury plains are a result of the bush burning they did early on. The carbon dating of the stumps is around 1450.
Exactly! And now they bang on about 'us' causing the damage.

Iantech
30-06-2012, 12:58 PM
Myth, of course no one here was around then, but there is a lot of scientific, historical and archaeological evidence out there. You also want to listen to some of the old Maori stories handed down over the generations.

Mike, that makes a lot of sence, you may well be right there.

B.M.
30-06-2012, 01:43 PM
What a pile of rocks that would have taken a few hours to assemble is proof of a higher civilization? I have seen these so embargoed my ass.

I’m sure there are many people who have seen the rocks and many people that could locate them.

So what exactly is embargoed or restricted until 2063? Seems odd to me too.

However, if you click the Feedback link on the site, there is some interesting reading from people all over the world.

Might provide more questions than answers but I would still like to know if this restriction, or embargo business until 2063 is correct and if so why?

:confused:

prefect
30-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Christ there are some clowns out there. How you can extrapolate a pile of rocks into a Beehive House" hovel dwelling from mediaeval times amazes the pants off me.
No wonder the Nigerian internet fraudsters are doing a roaring trade on dumb as dirt Westerners. There is one born everyday.

B.M.
30-06-2012, 06:37 PM
Christ there are some clowns out there. How you can extrapolate a pile of rocks into a Beehive House" hovel dwelling from mediaeval times amazes the pants off me.
No wonder the Nigerian internet fraudsters are doing a roaring trade on dumb as dirt Westerners. There is one born everyday.

That's all very well and good, but why would the Goverment declare the information about the matter secret until 2063???

No matter how I try I can't think of one good reason. Even 2063 seems a strange date.

But HERE (http://tvnz.co.nz/content/596904/411361.xhtml)'s another finding that won't please some.

“Using DNA, radio carbon and computer simulations, Victoria University scientist Adele Whyte of Ngati Kahungunu descent, has worked out that 190 women were in that last push to New Zealand. And there were probably more men, suggesting more than seven waka were used. "That proves it wasn't an accident. It was definitely a planned settlement. They bought plants and animals with them, that's not a fishing trip blown off course”.
"It blows out of the water any theories that Maori got here by accident," Whyte says. "Whenever I go onto a marae, the first thing people ask is what is your iwi. I guess this study is like an extension of this. Finding out who our family is... who our cousins out there in the Pacific."

This Indigenous People theory seems to me to be getting further off course.:lol:

Twelvevolts
30-06-2012, 08:04 PM
What you replied to wasn't racist at all but you like running around labelling everyone a racist.:groan:
I will ask you again. Have you ever personally been invited onto a marae and by that I don't mean as part of your work.

Your question is irrelevant to the issue but yes I have.

You'd have to be blind to see that this forum is used as a platform for racist viewpoints. Chilling Silence does nothing about it and consistently appears to support the comments of those that do.

You talk about Maori as if a whole race shares the same viewpoints and characteristics, but then get incredibly upset when someone returns the favour and calls you Pakeha.

Why this obsession with things Maori?. If you don't support stolen land being compensated for then we got your point about ten years ago, but the majority continues to vote for Governments that do.

I know democracy doesn't suit you extremists but recent Governments support resolving injustices and all the racist threads you want to start won't change that.

Twelvevolts
30-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Lol the most racist anti white, pro criminal rights person in the history of internet posting.
Hello pot. Gee thanks - high praise indeed from a rampant redneck like yourself - but you were always honest at least unlike some of the others on here.

martynz
30-06-2012, 08:17 PM
HERE (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/waipoua_fs.html) maybe?

WAIPOUA FOREST STRUCTURES.
"The following photos of dilapidated structures were taken on 11th November 2000. These are a few examples of registered structures, designated as purpose built by archaeologists, which were mapped by position, described and recorded for posterity. The information derived was considered so sensitive that it was then labelled "restricted" and not to be viewed by the general public until the year 2063".

Why the embargo????????? :confused:

According to this article (see p.8) the embargo was lifted in 1996......and there is nothing significant in the original report.

http://www.openureyes.org.nz/blog/?q=node/949

Iantech
30-06-2012, 08:32 PM
Twelvevolts, actually, I dont think this forum is a platform for racist viewpoints as you suggest, I think it does a good job at allowing freedom of speech and open discussion on all levels which is commendable. I have seen posts deleted by mods who consider them 'racist' comments and bannings and I have no doubt Chill would shut a thread down or pull it into line in a heartbeat if he considered it stepped over the line.

I dont think anyone here will deny injustices in the past and that they have got to be addressed and settled. The price the country has to pay (and ongoing payment) for the settlement is what needs to be debated. I dont think the majority of Governments do support it, but they have little choice in this day and age and are to scared to stand against it. And the majority of those people who vote them in, have little say about it also when all the political parties have to suck up to Maoridom.

Why is it that when anyone here has a different view than yours you have to abuse them by calling them racist, extremists, red necks etc, why cant you accept and respect there are people who have different thoughts to your own.

mikebartnz
30-06-2012, 08:47 PM
but then get incredibly upset when someone returns the favour and calls you Pakeha.
You were doing quite well until you put that as I couldn't care a less what someone calls me as long as it isn't late for breakfast so it shows me you are a total prat.

mikebartnz
30-06-2012, 08:50 PM
Twelvevolts, actually, I dont think this forum is a platform for racist viewpoints as you suggest, I think it does a good job at allowing freedom of speech and open discussion on all levels which is commendable. I have seen posts deleted by mods who consider them 'racist' comments and bannings and I have no doubt Chill would shut a thread down or pull it into line in a heartbeat if he considered it stepped over the line.

I dont think anyone here will deny injustices in the past and that they have got to be addressed and settled. The price the country has to pay (and ongoing payment) for the settlement is what needs to be debated. I dont think the majority of Governments do support it, but they have little choice in this day and age and are to scared to stand against it. And the majority of those people who vote them in, have little say about it also when all the political parties have to suck up to Maoridom.

Why is it that when anyone here has a different view than yours you have to abuse them by calling them racist, extremists, red necks etc, why cant you accept and respect there are people who have different thoughts to your own.
Well said.:thumbs:

mikebartnz
30-06-2012, 08:51 PM
You'd have to be blind to see that this forum is used as a platform for racist viewpoints.
You got that right.:lol::lol:

Jen
30-06-2012, 09:02 PM
Twelvevolts, actually, I dont think this forum is a platform for racist viewpoints as you suggest, I think it does a good job at allowing freedom of speech and open discussion on all levels which is commendable.It is not my imagination that there has been an increase in threads that bleat on about Maori in general or the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a small group of members who use this forum as their personal soapbox for this particular topic. While I am all for open and broad discussions, there is a difference between debate and constant regurgitation. For example, in the last 3 months B.M. has created 17 threads - 10 of these have been about Maori or the Treaty of Waitangi and 5 of those in just this month.

It has been pointed out that this gives the forum a 'taint', which is a bit sad. Open and varied discussion yes, single topic droning on and on, no. Give it a break please.

martynz
30-06-2012, 09:49 PM
:thumbs:
Thanks Jen.

Chilling_Silence
30-06-2012, 10:49 PM
I have seen posts deleted by mods who consider them 'racist' comments and bannings and I have no doubt Chill would shut a thread down or pull it into line in a heartbeat if he considered it stepped over the line.

Wait what? Who? Where?! An opportunity to swing the banhammer?! Count me in!! :D

Iantech
01-07-2012, 01:53 AM
It is not my imagination that there has been an increase in threads that bleat on about Maori in general or the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a small group of members who use this forum as their personal soapbox for this particular topic. While I am all for open and broad discussions, there is a difference between debate and constant regurgitation. For example, in the last 3 months B.M. has created 17 threads - 10 of these have been about Maori or the Treaty of Waitangi and 5 of those in just this month.

It has been pointed out that this gives the forum a 'taint', which is a bit sad. Open and varied discussion yes, single topic droning on and on, no. Give it a break please.I hear you. Maybe the increase in threads are due to the increase in media attention to what is going on between Maori and the Govt. and how it is effecting New Zealanders as a whole. If B.M. didnt start it, someone else will bring it to the attention of the board. If there is a common element who follow and comment on such threads then surely discussion is a healthy means to get it off their chest rather than have it suppressed by force. Hopefully that discussion will also lead to education and tolerance on such issues as I have found threads like these have led to some interesting links and pointed out some interesting historical facts and statistics.

As common New Zealanders become more and more oppressed for not being Maori and continuously having Maori views and culture rammed up their backsides, I guess there is only going to be more discussion on it, including some ranting and raving no doubt.

Over the time I have been on this forum, while discussions about Maori seem to have generated more threads, probably the worst and most abusive comments I have seen are about the 'Yanks' and 'Poms' by some (some other harsh comments such as about the Syrian Leader and the Sunni and Shiite people also come to mind).

If this discussion board is being 'tainted' by discussing Maori it is indeed sad. I respect the view of those that clearly think any discussion about Maori is racist and for anyone to make any comment about Maori must be a racist, red neck, bigot, etc etc, although I disagree and have seen very little, if any, "hate" towards Maori or out-right racist comments here (and I for one would be reporting a post if I saw it that way). In fact the worst racism I have seen on the net and heard in the media have generally been made by Maori towards white New Zealanders (which it seems is ok to get away with).

All I can repeat is well done this board to date for allowing freedom of speech and open healthy discussion and well done to the Moderators who respect and allow others to express their points of view that may differ to their own personal or political views, and in most cases look at them cautiously with an open eye and educated view point and not just slam them closed without as much as a comment.

My opinion only.

Nick G
01-07-2012, 10:40 AM
You'd have to be blind to see that this forum is used for racist viewpoints

You got that right.:lol::lol:
@Mikebartnz +1, so true :lol:

Twelvevolts
01-07-2012, 11:25 AM
You were doing quite well until you put that as I couldn't care a less what someone calls me as long as it isn't late for breakfast so it shows me you are a total prat. ooooohhh - touchy

Twelvevolts
01-07-2012, 11:49 AM
Hard to see on what basis the Government would be scared to stand against settlements if it got them votes. More likely the Government has noted that it lost the battle in Court over settlements, it is effectively bound therefore by law to settle the claims. As for people denying past injustices, have we been reading the same forum as certainly seems a lot of contributors on here who deny just that. I'm happy to debate issues, but the likes of Mikebartz seem not able to do that and resort to comments like "total prat". Why cant they accept and respect there are people who have different thoughts to their own?

Twelvevolts
01-07-2012, 11:57 AM
It is not my imagination that there has been an increase in threads that bleat on about Maori in general or the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a small group of members who use this forum as their personal soapbox for this particular topic. While I am all for open and broad discussions, there is a difference between debate and constant regurgitation. For example, in the last 3 months B.M. has created 17 threads - 10 of these have been about Maori or the Treaty of Waitangi and 5 of those in just this month.

It has been pointed out that this gives the forum a 'taint', which is a bit sad. Open and varied discussion yes, single topic droning on and on, no. Give it a break please.

Debate is a good thing and to be encouraged - certainly seventeen threads from BM don't appear to be intended for genuine debate though.

B.M.
01-07-2012, 11:59 AM
It is not my imagination that there has been an increase in threads that bleat on about Maori in general or the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a small group of members who use this forum as their personal soapbox for this particular topic. While I am all for open and broad discussions, there is a difference between debate and constant regurgitation. For example, in the last 3 months B.M. has created 17 threads - 10 of these have been about Maori or the Treaty of Waitangi and 5 of those in just this month.

It has been pointed out that this gives the forum a 'taint', which is a bit sad. Open and varied discussion yes, single topic droning on and on, no. Give it a break please.

Jen, did you not notice that the subject threads you complain about all referred to, and were linked to, “News Items”, most of which were covered by none other than Fairfax Media, the sponsors of this site. Oh the irony.

But the thrust of the debate is that at the moment the Government is taking Billions of dollars in land and cash from the General Economy and redistributing it on a Race Basis in favour of Maori. That is plain Racist. Needless to say the Hone Key Supporters and recipients of the handouts won’t see it that way and there lays the problem.

Personally, I believe that if you are entitled to a New Zealand Passport then you are a New Zealander and that’s it end of story. Your Colour, Class, or Creed is irrelevant.

Finally, I remember a well known American Politician (can’t recall exactly which one off the top of my head – Kennedy?) once said “The best way to beat communism is to talk about it”. I suggest the same goes for Racism. ;)

mikebartnz
01-07-2012, 12:08 PM
I'm happy to debate issues, but the likes of Mikebartz seem not able to do that and resort to comments like "total prat".
Only because you attributed something to me that was completely untrue which you often do the way you run around calling everyone a racist just because they don't choose to follow your reasoning so you need to learn how to debate issues without letting your personal feelings intrude so much.

B.M.
01-07-2012, 12:13 PM
According to this article (see p.8) the embargo was lifted in 1996......and there is nothing significant in the original report.

http://www.openureyes.org.nz/blog/?q=node/949

Quite an interesting link.

What a pity the site wasn’t a little more user friendly.

Anyway, I must have a second read, but it strikes me as odd that the embargo was lifted in 1996 courtesy of a Court Case and there was nothing in it??

Seems there’s strange things happening in the Forrest. :D

Chilling_Silence
01-07-2012, 12:34 PM
But the thrust of the debate is that at the moment the Government is taking Billions of dollars in land and cash from the General Economy and redistributing it on a Race Basis in favour of Maori. That is plain Racist. Needless to say the Hone Key Supporters and recipients of the handouts won’t see it that way and there lays the problem.


While I think most would echo those sentiments, regardless of if you're a National or Labour supporter, perhaps a letter to your local MP may be more productive?

mikebartnz
01-07-2012, 12:47 PM
Just for Twelvevolts benefit. Twice in my life I have felt physically threatened because I have been a Pakeha in amongst non Pakeha
The first time I was at a Maori friends fathers birthday party when some out of town relations of theirs threatened me when all the others had gone inside and it was just lucky Tonga came out and sorted it. Would I have been the lone Pakeha there if I hadn't been invited?
The second time was down south when I was waiting to talk to an Islander I knew and this guy across the table from him got threatening. Once again it was easily sorted but totally unnecessary.

prefect
01-07-2012, 01:41 PM
Just for Twelvevolts benefit. Twice in my life I have felt physically threatened because I have been a Pakeha in amongst non Pakeha
The first time I was at a Maori friends fathers birthday party when some out of town relations of theirs threatened me when all the others had gone inside and it was just lucky Tonga came out and sorted it. Would I have been the lone Pakeha there if I hadn't been invited?
The second time was down south when I was waiting to talk to an Islander I knew and this guy across the table from him got threatening. Once again it was easily sorted but totally unnecessary.

The most scary situation I have ever had was being threatened by them in a pub in Murapara. That includes being an aircraft when the engine has stopped.

tuiruru
01-07-2012, 01:59 PM
"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value".
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), Speech before the Colorado Live Stock Association, Denver, Colorado, August 19, 1910

OK - he wasn't talking about SOAs but it's the thought that counts....

As was pointed out near the beginning of the thread, the whole asset sale debacle is with us because of lethargic voting, which is why this interpretation is so succinct...

mikebartnz
01-07-2012, 02:06 PM
"The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value".
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919), Speech before the Colorado Live Stock Association, Denver, Colorado, August 19, 1910

OK - he wasn't talking about SOAs but it's the thought that counts....

As was pointed out near the beginning of the thread, the whole asset sale debacle is with us because of lethargic voting, which is why this interpretation is so succinct...
:thumbs:

B.M.
01-07-2012, 02:20 PM
While I think most would echo those sentiments, regardless of if you're a National or Labour supporter, perhaps a letter to your local MP may be more productive?

Ahhhhhh, I’m afraid not Chill.

You see my local MP is Simon Bridges who himself carries a drop or two of Maori blood and is firmly aligned with the Grievance Industry and the Treaty Gravy Train.

Never mind, was a thought. :thumbs:

bk T
01-07-2012, 02:26 PM
...

Firstly, over 1 million eligible voters (26%), like myself, didn’t vote. HERE (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503012&objectid=10769246)

Why? Because as I’ve said before It was like voting for which form of Cancer you’d prefer to die from. In short, the standard of Political Party & Politician was so poor we couldn’t bring ourselves to support any.

...

+1

Twelvevolts
01-07-2012, 05:33 PM
Only because you attributed something to me that was completely untrue which you often do the way you run around calling everyone a racist just because they don't choose to follow your reasoning so you need to learn how to debate issues without letting your personal feelings intrude so much. When you talk about personal feelings intruding you should reread the words "total prat"and see where your well reasoned argument is. No reference I can see in this thread calling you a racist, so you're getting paranoid as well.

Twelvevolts
01-07-2012, 05:56 PM
While I think most would echo those sentiments, regardless of if you're a National or Labour supporter, perhaps a letter to your local MP may be more productive?

The "race basis" you claim is only because the land stolen by the Government happened to be Maori land, the Courts upheld the claims against the Government so we're talking a legal obligation here. So surely that leaves us with the Government having legally to pay fair compensation for the land, that's what the current process is about. A letter to your MP is therefore completely pointless, although you could vote for a party in the future who will overthrow the rule of law. Question is why you care so much about the issue, there are those on this forum are always going on about Maori looking after their own interests, but when they do they are also apparently at fault. Where do these negative feelings about Maori come from? Seems Maori are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Was a programme this morning on Whale Watch and other Maori business groups on a marketing visit to China, doing a great job by the look of it in promoting this country. Maori culture is selling tourists on coming here but never hear anything positive about Maori from the likes of BM, seems on the surface that that is because there is another agenda.

mikebartnz
01-07-2012, 06:14 PM
When you talk about personal feelings intruding you should reread the words "total prat"and see where your well reasoned argument is. No reference I can see in this thread calling you a racist, so you're getting paranoid as well.
If you hadn't attributed something that was totally untrue about me that would never have come up so your argument there just doesn't stack up as usual and it wasn't about you calling me a racist but
but then get incredibly upset when someone returns the favour and calls you Pakeha.

Twelvevolts
03-07-2012, 08:39 PM
If you hadn't attributed something that was totally untrue about me that would never have come up so your argument there just doesn't stack up as usual and it wasn't about you calling me a racist but I'd have replied earlier but the moderator did not provide me with the opportunity until now. No personal attack was intended, the "you" wasn't intended to mean you personally but I can see how it reads that way. I don't see why the comment warrants a 48 hour ban when your comment doesn't, but in the circumstances I'll apologise for the comment made and accept that that isn't your perspective.

mikebartnz
03-07-2012, 08:48 PM
I'd have replied earlier but the moderator did not provide me with the opportunity until now. No personal attack was intended, the "you" wasn't intended to mean you personally but I can see how it reads that way. I don't see why the comment warrants a 48 hour ban when your comment doesn't, but in the circumstances I'll apologise for the comment made and accept that that isn't your perspective.
Apologies accepted.

Iantech
03-07-2012, 11:45 PM
The "race basis" you claim is only because the land stolen by the Government happened to be Maori land, the Courts upheld the claims against the Government so we're talking a legal obligation here. So surely that leaves us with the Government having legally to pay fair compensation for the land, that's what the current process is about. A letter to your MP is therefore completely pointless, although you could vote for a party in the future who will overthrow the rule of law. Question is why you care so much about the issue, there are those on this forum are always going on about Maori looking after their own interests, but when they do they are also apparently at fault. Where do these negative feelings about Maori come from? Seems Maori are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Was a programme this morning on Whale Watch and other Maori business groups on a marketing visit to China, doing a great job by the look of it in promoting this country. Maori culture is selling tourists on coming here but never hear anything positive about Maori from the likes of BM, seems on the surface that that is because there is another agenda.I understand what you are saying 12v and even agree with you somewhat, but here is the real problem.
1) Compensation for Maori land is a given, yes, it needs to be sorted out. But the system is being abused by some who are claiming beaches, water, air, fish, trees etc etc. And much of what is returned or compensated for, is of little to no benefit to the country unless it is already developed and bringing in an income. Some of the land returned is now just waste land and providing nothing for anyone. The whole issue is not driven by fair compensation, it is driven by greed.

2) Any income made by Maori is only going to Maori (apart from what the Govt collects in taxes). What would happen if any money made by non-Maori only went to non-Maori? There would be a hell of a stink about it. It seems any money made by New Zealanders goes to all New Zealanders (including Maori) and yet any money Maori make just goes to Maori. Maori have been given billions of dollars either in cash or assets, yet have contributed very little back into the country, millions have been wasted in failed investments, poor management etc and the whole country is suffering as a result of that money no longer in the economy. Its not giving Maori peole better standards, its giving the whole country worse standards.

Many older generation who have been around a while and can see the trend here, they dont like where the country is heading, its not a better place, it is worse off and they are worse off. We are all worse off as a country - all of us. While some of it has to do while Govt policy and the world economy a fair bit of it also has to do with Maori greed and their contribution to making NZ a better place for all - and all that is contributing to the negative feelings against Maori.

You talk about Maori business groups promoting the country, the reality is, they are promoting Maoridom not New Zealand. Maori culture is selling tourists agreed, but not all tourists and I would say not even a majority of tourists.
An example: The Tamaki's (who I think have a Maori tourist village in Rotorua) also set up a Maori village in Chch, the council gave them land, they spent 10's of thousands of dollars building it all. When I saw it going up, I said to a person I was with "I dont think they have done their homework, while Maori might be an attraction in the North, it doesnt have the same following in the South".
It started off with a hiss and a roar, those who went on the experience said it was a great show and really well done. It was $90 for the evening for locals and from memory about $150 USD for tourists, within about 3 months they were quietly scaling down, they didnt get many locals, they didnt get the tourists traveling through and they wernt getting the cruise ship tourists they hoped to be getting. It might have lasted about a year slowing going down hill until the experience was nothing but a hungi (cooked in gas ovens out the back), now, sadly there is nothing. It is a shame, because it was something different for Chch and they went to a lot of effort to put on an excellent performance, but its not what everyone comes to NZ for.

mikebartnz
04-07-2012, 12:01 AM
An example: The Tamaki's (who I think have a Maori tourist village in Rotorua) also set up a Maori village in Chch, the council gave them land, they spent 10's of thousands of dollars building it all. When I saw it going up, I said to a person I was with "I dont think they have done their homework, while Maori might be an attraction in the North, it doesnt have the same following in the South".
It started off with a hiss and a roar, those who went on the experience said it was a great show and really well done. It was $90 for the evening for locals and from memory about $150 USD for tourists, within about 3 months they were quietly scaling down, they didnt get many locals, they didnt get the tourists traveling through and they wernt getting the cruise ship tourists they hoped to be getting. It might have lasted about a year slowing going down hill until the experience was nothing but a hungi (cooked in gas ovens out the back), now, sadly there is nothing. It is a shame, because it was something different for Chch and they went to a lot of effort to put on an excellent performance, but its not what everyone comes to NZ for.
Have a very similar situation in South Masterton on a smaller scale but I don't think anything has ever happened there as far as tourists go. Was set up years ago.

Twelvevolts
04-07-2012, 12:23 AM
I understand what you are saying 12v and even agree with you somewhat, but here is the real problem.
1) Compensation for Maori land is a given, yes, it needs to be sorted out. But the system is being abused by some who are claiming beaches, water, air, fish, trees etc etc. And much of what is returned or compensated for, is of little to no benefit to the country unless it is already developed and bringing in an income. Some of the land returned is now just waste land and providing nothing for anyone. The whole issue is not driven by fair compensation, it is driven by greed.

2) Any income made by Maori is only going to Maori (apart from what the Govt collects in taxes). What would happen if any money made by non-Maori only went to non-Maori? There would be a hell of a stink about it. It seems any money made by New Zealanders goes to all New Zealanders (including Maori) and yet any money Maori make just goes to Maori. Maori have been given billions of dollars either in cash or assets, yet have contributed very little back into the country, millions have been wasted in failed investments, poor management etc and the whole country is suffering as a result of that money no longer in the economy. Its not giving Maori peole better standards, its giving the whole country worse standards.

Many older generation who have been around a while and can see the trend here, they dont like where the country is heading, its not a better place, it is worse off and they are worse off. We are all worse off as a country - all of us. While some of it has to do while Govt policy and the world economy a fair bit of it also has to do with Maori greed and their contribution to making NZ a better place for all - and all that is contributing to the negative feelings against Maori.

You talk about Maori business groups promoting the country, the reality is, they are promoting Maoridom not New Zealand. Maori culture is selling tourists agreed, but not all tourists and I would say not even a majority of tourists.
An example: The Tamaki's (who I think have a Maori tourist village in Rotorua) also set up a Maori village in Chch, the council gave them land, they spent 10's of thousands of dollars building it all. When I saw it going up, I said to a person I was with "I dont think they have done their homework, while Maori might be an attraction in the North, it doesnt have the same following in the South".
It started off with a hiss and a roar, those who went on the experience said it was a great show and really well done. It was $90 for the evening for locals and from memory about $150 USD for tourists, within about 3 months they were quietly scaling down, they didnt get many locals, they didnt get the tourists traveling through and they wernt getting the cruise ship tourists they hoped to be getting. It might have lasted about a year slowing going down hill until the experience was nothing but a hungi (cooked in gas ovens out the back), now, sadly there is nothing. It is a shame, because it was something different for Chch and they went to a lot of effort to put on an excellent performance, but its not what everyone comes to NZ for. I always thought people could do what they wanted with their own money and land - if someone wants to turn a golf course into scrub then if it is their land they can do what they want. Of course the likes of Whale Watch make money for themselves - it's called business. They also make money for the country because tourists spend money while they're here. Again though the double standard - let the land turn to scrub and you are wasting money, make a buck off it and you're greedy. I imagine I'll be banned again for this post.

Iantech
04-07-2012, 12:47 AM
I always thought people could do what they wanted with their own money and land - if someone wants to turn a golf course into scrub then if it is their land they can do what they want. Of course the likes of Whale Watch make money for themselves - it's called business. They also make money for the country because tourists spend money while they're here. Again though the double standard - let the land turn to scrub and you are wasting money, make a buck off it and you're greedy. I imagine I'll be banned again for this post.I hope you wont be!! I'll answer you tomorrow when I can think clearer because you have bought up some good points.

mikebartnz
04-07-2012, 01:14 AM
I imagine I'll be banned again for this post.
What did you achieve by putting that?

Chilling_Silence
04-07-2012, 03:11 AM
What did you achieve by putting that?

Should ban him just for being a smartass towards the mods ;)

Twelvevolts
04-07-2012, 10:15 PM
Should ban him just for being a smartass towards the mods ;) Like after post #84 do you mean?

prefect
05-07-2012, 08:40 AM
Yep that's bannable.

Cicero
05-07-2012, 10:32 AM
I was thinking in terms of HDQ, Q standing for Quarter.