Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It certainly wasn't cool. It might add some context, though, to note that dubmugga is brown-skinned himself.
Yes. I know. Does that give him an excuse to use asshole-flavoured gendered insults? Because it doesn't anywhere else on PAS.
Ngai Tahu is not beyond criticism.
Has anyone said anything of the kind? Sheez. I just think it's a bit bloody rough to get all 'they're not indigenous!' on Ngai Tahu considering most of the pre-European history of NZ has been characterised by waves of different iwi moving across the country waging war or making strategic alliances. (There was plenty of intermarriage between Ngai Tahu and Kati Mamoe, for example.)
They certainly appear to have a rather feudal way of doing things, in that little tangible benefit seems to reach the wider Iwi.
I sort of ignore all the political machinations, so you're probably right about their 'feudal' structure, but I would like to note that my whole family is enrolled in their retirement savings account, Whai Rawa, which matches savings up to a certain amount and gives regular payouts to those over 50, as well as helping young people go to university or put a deposit on a house. I mean, that doesn't totally suck for the wider iwi...
-
fuck those greedy ngai tahu cunts. they're as much indigenous to the sth island as my early irish ancestors.
Um... is there a button I can press on PAS to rate this statement as 'totally not cool'?
did a number on alot of the smaller iwi and hapu
If you don't think that happens all over the country you're a bit deluded. The government loves to negotiate with large groups. The East Coast right now is a prime example of that problem.
-
I don't care if that makes me an oathbreaker, because I'm not afraid of any curse in English or Maori binding my immortal soul to some fucking document from that long ago.
I... don't even know what to say to that. If you subscribe to that sort of weirdly ahistorical mindset, bully for you, but 1840 is not 'that long ago' by any stretch of the imagination.
The point, Danielle, is that in another hundred years from now no one and everyone will be a "Maori".
Thanks for that, Nostradamus. Look, lots of our own families are the product of cultural blends - no one's denying that. (I myself own a portion of some cold and windy land in Tuatapere that I share with dozens of other people in my hapu.) But you can't assume that Maori-ness itself will disappear just because some people intermarry and you think it would be a peachy keen idea. Ethnic groups are able to co-exist in the same country for hundreds and hundreds of years without holding hands and singing 'Melting Pot'. Why should they have to?
ETA: Oh Keir, that is such a *cynical* view of the matter. The 'Treaty is outdated' folks are just trying to forge a wonderful future for All New Zealanders (TM). :)
-
The point, Tom, is that if Maori don't accept your profoundly Pakeha-privileged vision of a Brave New World, or want to assimilate tidily into your 'one people' paradigm, you can't force them into it. That's not what partnership means.
-
Except its not agreed upon - its simply asserted by people with an axe to grind.
Ah, snap. I edited my original thought to reflect that issue just as you posted...
-
The idea that the specific articles of the treaty of Waitangi could still apply to him and - hopefully - his descendants at that time would be a functional absurdity.
I'm inclined to agree with Thomas Paine that the right of the dead to dictate the lives of the living is one of the most absurd things humans have ever come up with. It's a form of ghost worship.
So anything we may have once deemed legally/socially/ethically useful as a society needs to be ignored once it passes some nebulous, agreed-upon* use-by date? Like yoghurt?
Seriously, who *are* you people? You are freaking my historian ass the hell out. :)
ETA: *And the question of who does the agreeing-upon the use-by date is also a thorny one. I don't hear too many Maori talking about the 'functional absurdity' of their descendants having the Treaty apply to them. I wonder why that is?
-
some Maori talking about restricting access to beaches
How many, I wonder? I think it's probably a vanishingly small number of Maori who are separatist in that way. Of course, it's fun to stoke the fears of the ignorant or rednecks by talking up those numbers, but I very much doubt there'll be a Ngati Whatua blockade on the road to Kare Kare any time soon.
-
Murray McCully and Crosby-Textor think enough of us do to be worth pandering to.
To be honest, as someone who now works a bit in the 'Treaty industry', I think it's pure ignorance that's allowing the less, erm, 'enlightened' people to hold sway over this discourse. The merest skim of any of the original documents relating to Maori land alienation anywhere in NZ in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries shows a hugely cynical Pakeha apparatus bringing full power to bear on Maori. 'Land taken for public works... land taken for failure to pay survey lien debt... land taken for scenic reserves...' It's so deliberate and overt that it's almost laughable. Is learning about this at school completely beyond our education system, or something?
-
I would suggest a significant majority of New Zealanders are opposed to any treaty settlement process
Do we really suck that much?
-
The Appliance Shed Outlet Store is my church.
Surely the Henderson Appliance Shed is closer to Point Chev? I feel snubbed.