Posts by Sara Noble
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence
of CONVERSATIONS - not actions -
that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked
etc
-
Some of PA's denizens are, sadly, wedded to the idea that it's OK. or, at the very least, unable to condemn murder when it's by people they see as politically sympathetic.
Excuse me? I haven't seen anything on these pages that indicates that anyone of us would not condemn murder.
It is exactly that kind of bullshit escalation that gets us into more and more trouble.
I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked by a party that had just committed very real ATROCITIES against innocent civilians and needs to cover its very ugly rear end.
For clarity I mean:
1. Accepting these transcripts at face value is like looking at a photograph and believing it is reality.
2. Atrocity: "act of extreme wickedness or evil" (OED). Separating a 12 year old child from her people and putting a gun against her head is extreme wickedness. Separating a 15 year old girl from her people and a male police officer conducting a "cavity search" is extreme wickedness. (I don't actually believe in evil).
3. The police - individual leaders and collective entity - handled this badly by mounting the operation in the manner they did - there is nothing much new about that - dawn raids etc - and they should be held appropriately accountable. But the acts of extreme wickedness that came about in the process were perpetrated by individual police officers who should, right now, be facing criminal charges. This is the ugly rear-end that, instead, the police are covering for.
-
Horrible.
You capture my sense of this exactly. It is bizarre and surreal, mainly because I had managed to maintain my belief that with our relatively "neutral" stance on Iraq etc that we were effectively buying out of the whole war on terror thing.
War on Terror - I imagine you have all notice what an absolute nonsense the phrase is - even apart from being oxymoronic. I know I'm a bit of a stickler about the unconscious power of words, but I think that as a catch phrase this has been intended to convey a sense that Bush et al are going to put ALL our fears to rest - it is not just a war on Terrorism or terrorists (as if that were possible in the first place) but on Terror itself - nice Mr Bush is promising to tuck us all up safe and cozy in bed, with a cup of irradiated milk after, of course, saying our prayers.
So I'm still wondering how/why it has come to this. Ok:
We know that the Police can get all worked up about stuff - get an idea and then interpret (or even select) the evidence so it fits - AAThomas, Bain, now perhaps Scott Watson, and no doubt lots of others we'll never know about. I think there is an element of that here... (this is where a bit of racism come in too, I suspect, i.e. misunderstanding/mistrust of motives + moko = terrorist).
We know that there is the coincidence with the review of the STA and maybe the police or govt wanted to leverage the situation...
We know that fear is invoked to pave the way to increasing state power (and media income)...
We know that there is pressure to live up to international agreements... (though we obviously feel free to ignore the UN declaration on Indigenous Rights, and the UN criticisms of the unequal status of Maori)...
Is that what it amounts to? A nasty coincidence of a rag-tag bunch of ill-conceived notions and a couple of sparks of almost-conspiracy and suddenly we've joined the ranks of the International Avengers against the Axis of Evil et al.
Can we really be that dumb?
-
Interesting - thank you. It makes good sense, even of something my friend said the other day about traditional Maori society being both more authoritarian and more consensus orientated than the modern Westminster system. I have been wondering about the business of how Maori might go about the process of achieving a legitimate mandate for something - anything - given that most of the structures that they have to operate within (legal in particular) have been imposed from outside.
I guess I have a lot more sympathy with the idea that Maori, having been ripped from their land, traditions, language etc are not going to be terribly able (in general) to fight for themselves - especially given that the mechanisms for that fight are almost exclusively dominated by the system, language and culture of the invader.
I can't dispute your 6% of 6%, but I suspect that if you added up all the land and resources under the various statutes and structures that are nominally Maori (e.g. all the forest and fishery corporations, the Maori reserves, the Leaseholds for which only peppercorn rentals were/are paid etc etc, it might be quite a lot more. Then again I think it is time for a kind of "reverse Surplus Lands Act" - that all land in Crown ownership that is not directly productive (and probably even much of that) should immediately be returned to some kind of communal Maori ownership, retaining its various designations where they are considered to be of national importance (like scenic, scientific etc reserves) so that at least the underlying mana whenua was returned. And thats just for starters!
-
the Maori Trustee was originally the Native Trustee - so you get an idea of how far back it goes
the Maori Trustee has been Maori for the last twenty years or so
the Maori Trustee (who in the past was almost never Maori)
Okay - 20 years out of 100 is not "almost never," point conceded, but I did say "in the past."
It is really important to also remember that using the services of the Maori Trustee to administer your Maori land (assuming you are Maori and you have shares in a land block) is optional, it is not compulsory
This isn't true, huge amounts of land was put into Maori Trust (under the act) between at least the 1920's and the 1970's most of which is still there - and as you say, not to much commercial advantage.
In terms of the list of organisations invented by pakeha, we shouldn't forget to add iwi.
Please explain. I am fascinated.
-
On an almost-entirely-different subject (going back to Shep's and Dyan's posts), one of the things that occasionally strikes me about Pakeha culture in general is how we seem to have a very high tolerance for other people's distress. (For Neil's benefit I will put in the proviso that generalisations are abstract and therefore do not necessarily apply to all individuals or situations - and I do own it for myself.) It's weird, because I think we can also be very anxious about treading on toes and are rather averse to direct criticism or conflict.
But so much criticism, and even abuse, is passed off as joking. The scenarios Dyan describes are totally familiar to me. I'm sure Maori face this stuff all the time (I've seen it and the evidence is there). On National radio today, Michael Walker (Ranginui's son) talked about it. Also the appalling sexual "jokes". Two instances from my past are - 1. bending over to tie my shoe laces, aged 14, at a friend's parents' party and a drunk middle aged man shouting to his drunk friends "I'd like to fuck her up the arse." I still feel sick just thinking (writing) about this. 2. My husband's godmother's husband (lets call him "the Colonel") calling for some free legal advice, gets me instead: "Oh, Sara, how is your husband, I suppose you rape him every night." I was more polite and restrained (ie disarmed) then and said "well I suppose you should ask him" to which the Colonel said, "Oh no, I could never say that to him," and I replied "no, so maybe you shouldn't say it to me either." Subsequently, HE refused to come to Christmas at the in-laws because WE don't have any sense of humour. Turns out of course that my husband's sister had been suffering similar (worse) verbal abuse since she was about 12 and of course mummy dearest had always denied that he "meant anything by it." Its disgusting - and in case anyone doubts it, really damaging, especially when it's cumulative. (Which it tends to be given the prevalence).
The other bit about tolerating others' distress is how when some appalling crime has occurred the neighbours and workmates are always trotted out saying - oh, but he was such a nice man (Joseph Thompson) or, they were such a nice family (the Bains). Then of course it turns out that the daughter is abused and a prostitute etc etc etc.
I remember when the Bain case was fresh in the media, after a few days of "but he was such a good bloke (robin)" etc, a camera actually went through the house and it was, literally, a tip. Newspapers and rubbish bags and dishes and god knows what literally stacked up all the walls - hall way, kitchen, everywhere. Doors pushing rubbish in front of them as they were opened. I remember at the time thinking (and this was before I was aware of many of the revelations) "this family is depressed" or distressed, or at least seriously malfunctioning. And it seemed no-one had noticed.
And the same goes for parenting. Its a shit job - hardest in the world (forgive the hyperbole), lousy pay, no holidays or sick leave and no thanks, at least for the first 5 years. I pushed my girl over once and smacked her many times - all in anger - and I believe it is inexcusable. It is so sad that it comes to police action/prosecution for it to happen, but thank goodness the state is now going to pay for counselling for them - how many young families can afford $80 - 120 per hour for the duration that it takes to really address parenting and/or anger problems?
Ok. Enough already. Breathe.....
-
Another really interesting part of the Derek Fox discussion today was in relation to freeing up money held by the Maori trustee so that it can be applied to Maori development. This brings back another aspect of the discussion we have had in the past in that so many of the mechanisms that have been put in place by government supposedly to remedy grievances Maori interests have themselves become obstacles to Maori advancement. Fox mentions the $90M held by the Maori Trustee (who in the past was almost never Maori) and the Crown Forestry Trust, there are multiple other such organisations - the fisheries commission, many of the Iwi Trust Board for example, that also hold large amounts of money that are not available for general Maori or Iwi development. T don't know a whole lot about this, but I do know that it is the cause of considerable frustration to many.
The Tuhoe Trust Board was set up in about 1967 and the Board members were appointed by Government, without the mandate of Tuhoe, and many of the original Trustees are still in place. I understand that Tuhoe has become unified (i.e. hui throughout the subtribes) around the need to get rid of this board, as it also has 10's of millions of dollars worth of Iwi assets tied up. Some in Tuhoe wonder about the coincidence of this unification and the police raids - i.e. the hui process was concluded a week before the raid.
Equally, the Maori Land Court, District Maori Councils etc were set up supposedly to administer Maori Land to their benefit, but again were set up with little or no consultation, without reference to Iwi boundaries and have often effectively suppressed Maori development. And on and on it goes...
-
-
Damn, when I started writing here, I proof-read about 3 times, then trial posted. Now I just bung it up and watch the typos glare at me. Sorry!
-
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Touch_of_the_tar_brush%22|Wiki] agrees with you regarding the origin of "a touch of the tar-brush". It's funny that I think the only person I can remember using the phrase is my father who, being a supposedly liberal joker, uses it in a supposedly joking way.
Interesting re boats and farming (thanks) which make more sense because I guess if you're going to be tarred and feathered its more likely to be poured than painted (?). I don't think I have ever really thought about tar-brushes in any context other than "a touch of". So I think the 2 usages crashed together in my head. Again, I wonder if their is any demonstrated link in etymology. If only I could write to Peter Sinclair.