Entry 2324, on 2024-02-08 at 21:27:51 (Rating 4, Politics)
So our "national day", Waitangi Day, has come and gone again, so now might be a good time to think about where we are as a nation. The answer is nowhere good. Thank you, that is the end of the blog post. Well, it isn't really...
I suspect to most New Zealanders, Waitangi Day is just a day off work. To me it was that plus a time to argue about the state of the country with people on-line! So yes, arguing is the primary activity which happens on this day now.
My friends and acquaintances might not be a representative sample, but I get the impression that no one really cares much about this day. It's a day off work, and any further significance is either ignored or actively avoided. For example, under no circumstances should you listen to RNZ or watch TVNZ on this day, unless you want to get propagandised with the most absurd nonsense imaginable.
The problem is that a national day should be about celebrating a nation, and recognising how the people of that nation are united towards a common goal. But not here, because the day reminds us how deeply divided we really are.
I'm not suggesting Maori and other ethnicities are divided; what I am saying is that Maori activists and their non-Maori allies are divided against the rest. It is difficult to get numbers on what percentage of the population these two groups might represent, but I suspect the majority are in the "don't care" camp, rather than either of those two groups.
The Maori activists have always liked to use the day to whine and moan about their alleged plight and to demand greater privileges and power which they don't deserve, but this year it was more intense than usual because of the Act Party's Treaty Principles Bill.
The "Treaty" here refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, a document signed by the British and some Maori tribes in 1840. One problem is that it wasn't really a single document because there was an English version and a version translated into Maori, which has resulted in some confusion because the translation of some (usually more abstract) English words into Maori is imprecise.
The Treaty is often claimed to be the founding document of the country, but this claim is open to some suspicion, since it was really just designed to make Maori British citizens so they could be protected by law.
So the Treaty is open to considerable interpretation, but even that isn't the real problem, because in the last few decades a new activity has arisen involving creating "Treaty Principles". These are basically opinions on what new principles might arise from the "spirit" of the Treaty even when they are not specifically mentioned.
And that's the biggest problem: these are entirely politically driven ideas which have come from activists in places like the Waitangi Tribunal and have been often accepted by woke governments, especially on the left, who usually rely on getting Maori votes, although the right is certainly not innocent either.
Naturally the mainstream media have been up to their usual tricks of deliberately misrepresenting the intent of the Bill either by repeating false information or allowing pro-Maori activists to say it, unchallenged.
What the Act Party want to do is to open a discussion on what the principles of the Treaty should be. They don't want to re-word or eliminate the Treaty itself, although there is actually a pretty good case to do that. In my opinion there should be no principles. If we are going to acknowledge the Treaty at all, let's accept what it says, not what some people think it should have said, or what might exist in the imagination of the activists.
In my experience, people who don't want to engage in debate often have a very weak case and know they would probably lose. So when I see such strong opposition to this, I assume that might be the reason.
The previous government basically just jumped to attention whenever Maori demanded anything (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration, but there is some truth there) and now that has stopped they are not happy. I mean, fair enough, if I was getting a lot of handouts and special privileges and that might end, I might try to eliminate the threat too. But we should recognise it for what it is: a determination to maintain self-centered, selfish privileges.
The philosophy behind Act's proposed changes is to make all New Zealanders equal, instead of allowing race-based privileges. Ironically this, which is the exact opposite of racism, is labelled racist. We shouldn't be gaslit by nonsense like that; we need to become a country where everyone is treated the same. The activists won't like that, but it's time it happened anyway.
We should rescue our national day, and our nation.
Comment 1 (7571) by Jim Cable on 2024-02-09 at 11:50:04:
A pretty good summation. Given all the money, land and property transferred to iwi interests since 1989 in FULL and FINAL settlement (especially since there'd been TWO prior full and final settlements made prior to that) I was surprised to hear several Maori speakers claim their land "had been stolen from them."
Either Maori don't understand the meaning and implications of "full and final" or their leaders are elementally dishonest people who're attempting to rort the country even further for their selfish ends.
ACT are on the right track - and Luxon with his pandering to Maori is losing vast support among National's membership and supporters.
Comment 2 (7572) by OJB on 2024-02-09 at 12:10:21:
Yes, unless Luxon can get over his woke-ism or cowardice (not sure which it is, but both are equally bad) nothing will be achieved. On the other hand, I think woke-ism has peaked, so we should see a slow improvement in this stuff over time, whatever Luxon decides to do.
Comment 3 (7573) by Ralph on 2024-02-09 at 22:07:56:
Exactly what so many New Zealanders think, & now express.
Comment 4 (7574) by OJB on 2024-02-10 at 15:24:26:
Yes, that is what I suspect: that most people would broadly agree with what I said in this post. And I think that is why the other side are afraid of any debate, and especially a referendum. All the pro-Maori BS is supported by just a noisy minority.
Comment 5 (7575) by Dad on 2024-02-11 at 17:41:52:
A great blog Owen expressing opinions I would suggest would be supported by the majority of New Zealanders.
Good to see you receiving two supportive comments.
Comment 6 (7576) by OJB on 2024-02-12 at 22:08:34:
Yes, I can't tell for sure, but I think the majority would agree with me. Some surveys seem to indicate this, although it depends on many factors. At the very least, it is an opinion held by a significant number of people, so it should be discussed.
Comment 7 (7577) by Allan Baxter on 2024-02-14 at 08:47:55:
Here is the full text of a letter published (abridged) in the ODT recently...
It is not surprising that the Treaty is causing so much controversy.
The Treaty was prepared in writing by the English with the other party (the Maori) having no written language. It is easy to see in hindsight how with differences in the Maori spoken language (which would also have been affected by tribal dialect) confusion could arise over the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty.
The Treaty however is the legally signed recorded version of those intentions and expectations. We should not add or subtract items to it simply because some of the descendants of the original parties constantly question whether the original recorded wording accurately express and record the intentions and expectations. For instance, the unlikely scenario that the Treaty is a partnership agreement.
Apart from Maori continually thinking up new obligations they feel were implied in the Treaty my feeling is that the Crown have largely already met their obligations and that therefore the Treaty may perhaps no longer be relevant.
Almost 200 years later can it be expected that any of the descendants of the original parties could honestly say that they could accurately assess what was recorded in writing and signed at the time was not the intention and expectations of all the parties.
After almost 200 years of intermarriages perhaps it is also time to consider legally defining just who is a Maori.
It would appear that from the results of the last General Election the majority of New Zealanders may feel it is time the Treaty was revised or perhaps even revoked and replaced with a constitution more applicable and fair to all present day New Zealanders irrespective of race or creed.
Comment 8 (7578) by OJB on 2024-02-14 at 15:08:37:
Yes, this argument happens at many levels. I say forget about the Treaty because: it is *not* the founding document of the country, it is almost 200 years old and no longer relevant, it has been warped for political purposes so that the original intention has been lost, and there is no distinct line between Maori and others any more anyway.
It is just a divisive anachronism being milked for all its worth by Maori elites. Sorry if this sounds like something you might have heard before, but I blame the media, and the university "training" (AKA propagandising) the members of the modern media receive.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE