9 Blogs‎ > ‎Colin Rawle‎ > ‎

Part One


C.H.Rawle. January, 1999.


(an essay based upon a 1995 submission to the government).

I preface this essay with the statement that I know from personal experience, that there are a great number of decent and sensible Maori people in this country, (even if there are few, if any, true full blooded Maori still living). Obviously the more forthright comments contained in the essay do not apply to sensible people of any race.

My comments will be of a general nature and will not be confined to the Crown proposals* specifically, but will address the very premises upon which they, the treaty itself, and the grievances and claims are based.

I will speak the truth, as I see it, plainly and as clearly as I can, which means that I can make no concession to "political correctness" and "cultural safety", which in turn means that in certain quarters my views will not be well received.
To any thinking person pseudo liberal political correctness must surely be a dangerous tyranny, the very existence of which is proof of a collective failure of society to attain to true ethical individualism. Politically correct falsehoods have been highly instrumental in bringing about the current socially destructive situation with regard to the treaty and Maori issues generally. Political correctness is laughable or merely absurd only to the most superficial of observers. Its character can be ascertained by noting what it fosters and what it opposes. Generally speaking, political correctness attacks or rejects those values which arose originally out of Christianity, and seeks to replace them with their opposite. This type of "thinking" permeates the entire social organism these days, and is particularly evident in the education system, at all levels. Hopefully it is superfluous to add that those who control education have carte blanche access to the impressionable minds of a nations children and young adults.
In short, political correctness is the modern West's sickly sweet version of Bolshevism, Fascism, and Nazi-ism; and in the long run - inasmuch as it's true nature still remains largely unrecognised - political correctness will be even more destructive than it's three appalling prototypes.

"There is only one thing that can be said for certain about public opinion - it is wrong" - Plato.

It is the treaty of Waitangi itself which makes the New Zealand situation unique in world colonial history. To my knowledge, there are no other similar cases to be found in other countries colonised in the modern era, and certainly such a case would be inconceivable as far as the ancient migrations and colonisation's of human history are concerned.

The treaty, the way it is being misused these days, gives to "Maori", (the largely mixed race remnants of an ancient tribal culture, and a minor proportion of New Zealand's population), an improper degree of power and influence over this nation and its people which has no parallel elsewhere in the world. This was never the intention of the treaty. This power and influence is being bestowed upon Maori on the basis of their race, i.e. upon a racially discriminatory basis. This is a clear and obvious contravention of both democracy and the intentions of the treaty.

The popular ideology of the moment, that Maori have a preferred status among other New Zealanders is a contrivance of radicalism and political correctness. The treaty, quite properly, assured equality for Maori, not preference. Shamefully however, preferential treatment for Maori in New Zealand today is widespread practice.
The main purpose of the treaty was to cede sovereignty of New Zealand to the British Crown while ensuring to Maori their property rights and, like their European countrymen, all rights of British citizenship. By means of the treaty Maori became subjects of the Crown and a part of the "one people" of the new colony. It was never the intention of the treaty to give Maori special political rights over and above the democratic rights of other citizens. Talk of "power sharing" and "partnership", is a recent invention of an unholy mix of radicalism, undemocratic political agendas, and judicial activism all operating under the approving umbrella of political correctness. It is technically and legally impossible for Maori to be in any form of "partnership" with the Crown, while being like everyone else, subjects of the Crown. More to the point, it would be racial discrimination, undemocratic, impossible in social practice, and morally unacceptable to anyone of modern consciousness. The recent invention of political "partnership" arose out of a willful misinterpretation of the phrase "the treaty partners" which simply means the partners or parties to any treaty agreement. The actual terms of the treaty itself are something entirely different and provide for absolute sovereignty of New Zealand to be ceded to the British Crown for ever.
In simple terms, tribalism is incompatible with democracy. It can only properly exist in the context of its proper chronology and milieu. In other words, in the modern New Zealand of today, it is out of time and place. As the expression of an ancient and anachronistic consciousness, tribalism cannot possibly exist within the overall embrace of a democratic society without causing the insoluble problems we are now experiencing. Naive indeed, are those who believe that acquiescing to tribal mentality will result in anything but escalation. In the case of New Zealand such problems are enormously accentuated in the first place by the very existence, and secondly by the blatant misuse of the treaty of Waitangi by a destructive alliance of political correctness and anachronistic tribal mentality. As a consequence of this a veritable "Gordians Knot" of racial problems have been created in what was once a relatively harmonious and democratic society.

At the time of colonisation Maori consciousness, and hence their culture, was tribal. All races or cultures have either passed, or are still passing, through a tribal stage of development. The leading central European peoples had transcended this stage by the time of the Greeko Roman period - between two and three thousand years ago. Tribalism in Western Europe, including Britain, was brought to the beginnings of its demise by the invasions and conquests of the Roman empire. Thus the civilising influences of the worlds highest culture of the time forever changed the whole of Europe and indeed the then known world. Tribalism in Western Europe therefore, was superseded by a combination of the natural process of evolving consciousness, and the intervention, or invasion and colonialism of a higher culture. Tribal sentient consciousness is utterly different from the succeeding development in consciousness which was capable of introducing both the democratic impulse into social evolution, and the dawn of truly individual intellect and logic, (Greek philosophy). Human beings at the stage of tribal consciousness (in its pure original form) were, by the faculty of racial memory, capable of accurately remembering, or "experiencing" their genealogy.

(Whakapapa in Maori terminology). This ancient capacity, (now lost due to the development of individual, self conscious intellect), was carried by the stream of heredity. Thus tribal consciousness is inextricably interwoven with the blood/race relationship. This is the basis of the long decadent ancestor worship. Out of exactly the same type of consciousness, the old testament Jewish people (four - five thousand years ago), could say, "We and the Father Abraham are one". The present resurgence of this atavistic and thus distorted consciousness lies at the root of extreme radicalism, the destructive path of which is eagerly smoothed by politically correct, white pseudo/liberals. Despite its visionary aspect, tribal consciousness sees life in comparatively simple terms. It is far less an individual, and far more an instinctive group consciousness. While within the confines of a tribe there was an unspoken, instinctive, communal understanding, and a rigid, nepotistic hierarchy, outsiders or other tribes were, by definition, enemies, or at least competitors. Tribalism is only co-operative within the tribe, in all other cases it is about supremacy, dominance. Accommodations between tribal groups were invariably based upon mutual recognition of equal force of arms. In other words, behind any co-operation between tribes is the simple imperative of survival. The democratic concept of individual human rights, or of universal civil rights, irrespective of tribal connections is quite impossible for tribal consciousness. The survivors of any tribal conquest had no rights, unless specific rights were subsequently granted to them by their masters under unusual circumstances. There were no generally recognised inherent human rights for all. This characterisation of tribal consciousness is true of all races or cultures while at that early stage of their development.

Maori spiritual beliefs, in common with the spiritual beliefs of all peoples were based upon the old, instinctive experience of certain universal realities. For this reason Maori spirituality differs in detail, but not in essence, from many other tribal cultures. However, as a consequence of the natural evolutionary transition to a different, and more individual type of consciousness, old faculties are lost and genuine spiritual experience invariably degenerates into distorted superstitions and dogma. The task of modern peoples, in this respect, is to win back the same eternal truths by dint of a disciplined application of their modern consciousness and intelligence. Due to intermarriage and socialisation, the consciousness of present day "Maori" is in the transition stage as described above, and bears little resemblance to that of the pre-colonial Maori side of their lineage. However, to the extent that the old tribal consciousness does persist in present day "Maori" of mixed race, its characteristics remain as outlined above, and as such can only cause insoluble dilemmas if allowed free reign in the modern context. These facts should be borne in mind with regard to treaty negotiations because it appears that in these negotiations the tribal element in the consciousness of the Maori negotiators is holding sway. Maori are negotiating only on their own behalf, or even only on behalf of their own particular tribe. There is no evidence to suggest that in their negotiations Maori take cognisance of the values, needs, and general welfare of New Zealand society as a whole. However, it is precisely the responsibility of the government, as the representative of the people, to act in the interests of all New Zealanders, which, of course, includes Maori. This is a fundamental, and not wholly reconcilable difference in the positions of the two parties.
The treaty of Waitangi could have been a good thing, but given present social circumstances and attitudes it has become the perfect instrument for divisiveness and social disharmony. In view of certain false conceptions regarding colonisation which have been fostered over the past four or five decades, the purpose of the following section will be to show the necessity of the colonisation of New Zealand in particular, and of colonisation in general, as the means of bringing diverse countries and their peoples into the overall embrace of world civilisation and its ongoing evolution. Those people, (and these days this must include the overwhelming majority of the population), who consider such a universal historical phenomena as colonisation only in its external manifestations, lose sight of what is really essential, i.e, the evolutionary impulses working under the surface. If, in addition to this, people narrowly confine themselves to racial perspectives and the incidental and personal occurrences which inevitably attend colonisation, then we arrive at the absurdity of the present situation in New Zealand. However, the pivotal point of such considerations must be the question of consciousness, the evolution of consciousness, and the different levels, or stages of consciousness of different races, and the different tasks and responsibilities that fall to them respectively, as a consequence of their particular consciousness. For these reasons much of this essay addresses the nature of Maori tribal consciousness, relative to European consciousness.

We see this evolution of consciousness before us in the human being as he or she develops from birth to adulthood, and we see it in humanity collectively, as the causative background of world-changing historical events in the stream of time. With due consideration it can be seen that the tribal stage of social development corresponds to the adolescent stage of consciousness in a modern individual. If it were not for the treaty of Waitangi the difference between European consciousness and the Maori tribal consciousness would not be as important as it most certainly is under the actual circumstances. This is because misuse of the treaty is now having the effect of allowing anachronistic Maori perspectives to have an disproportionate influence upon far too many aspects of life in New Zealand.

The British did not need to make a treaty with Maori. Indeed it was with reluctance that they finally agreed to accept the responsibility of Sovereignty. Given the desire, it would have been within their power to have completely subjected Maori to their rule, but they tried to come to some kind of humanitarian accommodation. The treaty was a consequence of this intention. While there is no doubt that the British decision to finally assume sovereignty of New Zealand was many faceted, a part of their purpose was to halt the inter-tribal "musket wars" by which Maori were destroying themselves, to civilise the country, introduce Christian values, and to protect everyone from certain types of unscrupulous Europeans, and from other colonial powers, particularly the French. In addition to this there remains that aspect, (referred to above), of the inner necessity of colonisation for evolutionary reasons which are above any human design. Most Maori of the time, devastated by internicine war as they were, were fully in favour of British control and protection and duly signed the treaty, thus receiving full rights of British citizenship and the protection that such citizenship confers. It was perfectly well understood at the time that as British subjects Maori were subject to the Crown and the laws of the land. Those who did not sign the treaty were not subsequently denied the same rights as those who did. However, many unsustainable Maori claims are made today on the basis of wilful misinterpretations of the treaty, to which, in many cases their ancestors were not signatories. With regard to geographic areas this appears to include at least Taranaki, part of the Taupo area, and opinions vary regarding the whole of the South Island.

The characteristic of Maori to exclusively concern themselves with their own affairs, problems, and welfare, and with racial distinction and divisions, is consistent with tribal consciousness. Unfortunately however, this fact in combination with ill use of the treaty, has had a decided influence upon the general psychology of New Zealanders, so that racial overtones now permeate almost every social issue. Racism is seen where there is no racism, or in some cases where there is merely a difference of opinion, to the detriment of goodwill and the social good. Many people who under more congenial circumstances would have no disposition towards racial distinction in their thinking, can nowadays in this country hardly avoid it.

The whole question of what, in truth, stands behind the phenomenon and advent of European global exploration and colonisation beginning in the fifteenth century, and the rights and responsibilities of indigenous peoples and colonial powers, is so shrouded in ignorance, and what seems to be a wilful ignorance, that is it difficult to know where to begin a commentary. Indeed, it is an indictment upon the superficiality of present day society that the deeper, and necessary questions implicit in such important world events are not even asked; for in the exploration of such matters, the truths which would lead to knowledge, understanding, and reconciliation, are to be found. It is almost beyond belief that some people can profess to believe that colonisation generally and colonisation of New Zealand in particular, need not, or should not, have happened, when in fact it was an evolutionary necessity and quite inevitable. Colonisation of New Zealand could not have been avoided in any event, so the question of whether or not colonisation per sec, is a good or a bad thing does not really arise. If something is truly inevitable and beyond human control then moral judgements about it are superfluous. Properly understood human exploration, migration and colonisation are as natural and as inevitable as birth, maturation and living a life. How people go about the business of colonisation is open to criticism, the fact itself is not. Seen from any perspective higher than the narrow and personal and leaving propaganda aside, colonisation of New Zealand was, on balance, enormously more advantageous than detrimental to Maori.

The (apparently few) people who are aware of the realities of Maori life and practices prior to colonisation and up to 1840 know also that colonisation of New Zealand by the British at the time it occurred was very timely and the best thing that could possibly have happened and I am quite sure that deep down fair-minded Maori realise this. This point was made by forward thinking Maori leaders of the past, including Sir Apirana Ngata. The fact that very few Maoris today will acknowledge this is further evidence of the fall back into tribal consciousness which would never concede such a perceived psychological advantage to an enemy or competitor. (During the intertribal musket wars (approx' 1806 -1840 ) which were finally stopped by the treaty of Waitangi and the gradual spread of law and order, the Maoris reduced their population - then about 100,000 - 150,000 by something like 30% - i.e. 30-50,000 killed.)
If New Zealand was to take its destined place alongside the rest of the modern developing world then it was essential for Europeans to take control of the country, so as to be in a position to establish universal government, and eventually law and order. Upon this basis the foundation of a modern nation could be laid.

(On a personal note.... despite its technological wonders I have no great enthusiasm for modern technological life, but human evolution waits for no man. We either go forward with the tide of time, or like the old time Maori become stragglers in its wake.)

Measured against the scale of mankind's colonising exploits throughout the whole of world history, and considering the volatile and duplicitous nature of tribal consciousness, the colonisation of New Zealand was about as civilised and accommodating as could reasonably be expected. The great injustices allegedly inflicted by Europeans upon Maori are inventions of radicalism and politically correct revisionist history. Only minor injustices were perpetrated, which were quite possibly exceeded by the nowadays disregarded injustices which many early explorers and settlers suffered at the hands of Maori. Those who doubt this should inform themselves by reading the literature of the time - such as Charles Heaphy's "Papers Relative To The Native Insurrection", appendix 4, circa 1861. Heaphy - 1820-1881, was a man of integrity, a draughtsman, artist, surveyor, explorer, soldier, public servant and was the first colonial volunteer soldier to earn a Victoria Cross in the Maori wars.

"To err is human, to forgive is divine". Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, to be sure, but forgetfulness is no great virtue, especially when it dishonours those brave explorers and settlers who suffered for the sake of future generations. It also leaves one vulnerable to those of selective memory who seem to never forgive, and forget only their own sins.

Once some measure of social stability was achieved the establishment of the primary industries such as the timber industry, combined with the beginnings of farming, could proceed. (all farm livestock and all the basic staple cereal grains and grasses along with countless other plants and trees, fresh water fish, even bees, had to be introduced from Great Britain, Europe or America). Then began fishing, shipping, mining, engineering, surveying, electricity generation, construction of transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, communications, newsmedia, schools and universities, churches and cathedrals, hospitals, villages, towns, cities and industries of every description...and so on, ad infinitum. All of this development would have been impossible without European colonisation and it is beyond belief that this is not realised, or remembered, by all people of normal intelligence. One feels slightly ridiculous in pointing out such patently obvious facts and yet in their rhetoric the Maori agitators and their politically correct supporters show every sign of being totally oblivious to such self evident and germane facts. Such wilful disregard or avoidance of such pivotal truths can only be attributed to the fact that it does not serve the agenda of the radical movement. Furthermore, what has passed for education over the last few decades has ensured that the population generally is not as aware as it should be of the enormous evolutionary significance of colonisation, (both ancient and modern).

It is not colonisation which has led to the present dire social circumstances in New Zealand and elsewhere in the international "West", but complex and entirely different factors, one of which is a certain inner dishonesty or delusion which began in the early 19th century, became a political theory through Karl Marx, and has long since thoroughly permeated western civilisation despite ideological posturings to the contrary. Communism and extreme capitalism are but different ideological branches growing out of the same poisoned soil. One branch of this atheistic materialism has in recent decades reached its crowning absurdity in political correctness; the other, in ruthless Right wing economics. From the introduction to " The Complete Prose Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson" (published 1890) :-- "...Emerson preaches the duty of every man to add to the common stock, to do something in return for his existence; and he shows how we all may be rich in the common property of our city or nation while obeying the laws of moderation in our private possessions. He quenches the protectionist and the "fair-trader" with his "give no bounties; MAKE EQUAL LAWS; secure life and property, and you need not give alms. Open the door of opportunity to talent and virtue and they will do themselves justice; and property will not be in bad hands"

What colonisation did for Maori, apart from rescue them from total geographic and social exile, and from a savage way of life which was spiralling rapidly downwards, was, effectively, to place the whole world and everything in it at their disposal, together with an international language and the education to take full advantage of all that it has to offer. In short, it ushered them into what these days is often called the human family and the global village.

Maori are not indigenous to this country, and the steadfast determination to avoid acknowledgement of even this fundamental fact is characteristic of the lack of honesty surrounding Maori issues in this country. Even the government report on public submissions regarding treaty claims refers to Maori as "indigenous", and "Tangata Whenua", thus reinforcing and further perpetrating a dangerous fallacy which the radicals and their supporters do not fail to exploit. Truth is always the first casualty of war, and let there be no error, the radical element of Maoridom has never really ceased in its war against what it sees as its suppression. Only the weapons and tactics have changed. Maori themselves were migrants and colonisers, and so were those peoples who preceded them in New Zealand. In view of this, any resentment arising out of the fact of colonisation in itself, is either hypocritical or irrational. Refusal to strive for the objectivity which would certainly acknowledge such facts plays no small part in the acrimonious atmosphere surrounding Maori issues.

The Maori radical of today is like the wounded warrior who knowing only his own pain, creeps from the fray, unknowing and uncaring that numberless others suffer also, and that his minor skirmish was only a small part of a much greater battle, the stakes of which he cannot imagine.

It is absolutely crucial to establish this point about differentiation of consciousness among different races, so that with regard to social interaction of any nature between different races it is not assumed by either race that the other has the same, faculties, values, world view, feelings, and aspirations as themselves. To properly relate to, and truly communicate with another person is always the foundation of a harmonious relationship. One must have some idea of how the other thinks. If this point had been correctly grasped and taken into account in the New Zealand situation, there would have been greater efforts on the part of the colonial authorities to ensure that agreements made between themselves and Maori were understood in the same way, as far as this was possible. Then and today, it is ridiculous and fraught with serious consequences for government to negotiate with Maori on the assumption that they think just as Europeans do. In any event, there is no way that the control of New Zealand by Europeans could have, or should have been prevented. Otherwise New Zealand could not have been developed into the modern nation it is today. Present day assumptions regarding the thoughts and feelings of 150 years ago about supposed "agreements", between peoples of different races are no sound basis for long term harmony and co-operation. Having said this, and having read sufficiently on the the character of leading Maori figures throughout most of the 19th century, one feels for them a measure of admiration that can only rarely be extended to their present-day successors.
New Zealand today is reaping the consequences of the failure to recognise the difference between European and Maori consciousness. It is obviously not true that there are no redeeming features and nothing positive about European civilisation or colonisation, and that Maori have lost everything and gained nothing from colonisation. Without European colonisation Maori would not even have a pencil or pen, a piece of paper, nor any use for such things. That Maori have long since been taught the international language of English and to read and write, and thus given the opportunity to self educate themselves on any subject in the world, is the sort of blindingly obvious fact which is so conveniently overlooked these days. The ridiculous attitudes of the Maori radicals are based upon their obvious ignorance of what colonisation has actually done for them. In anticipation of the usual rejoinder to this, it must be reiterated that the cause of the current untimely decline of European/Western civilisation bears no relation whatsoever to the timely demise of the Maori culture. If the alleged disadvantages of colonisation are to be so diligently listed, then the endless list of advantages should also be put into the balance. Therefore, along with their criticisms and accusations Maori should bear in mind that their considerable progress in all spheres of life since colonisation has been built upon the very basis of European science and technology, upon European trade and industry. European economics, European social structures, European law, European medicine. Upon the vast and ancient European scholarship, art and literary tradition. European education .... etc. In short, upon the foundation of European civilisation.

The lamentable state of society today has not been caused by European civilisation as such, but rather by the decline of true European civilisation, i.e, by the unrelenting sabotage of its founding principals over recent centuries. Therefore, the present state of social affairs should properly be considered the antithesis of what European civilisation should be. The extremely materialistic Left and Right wing political/social ideologies of today are true products of a materialistic world view. Such modes of thought must finally completely divorce an individual or a society from reality, resulting in all manner of abberations, including the ludicrously deferential demeanor many western people adopt towards so called indigenous, or native cultures. Both these ideologies - the extreme Right, and the politically correct extreme Left, have these days gone way beyond the outer limits of rationality into outright fanaticism.

While bearing in mind that in speaking of racial matters, one is obliged to generalise, it nevertheless remains generally true that different races are at different stages on the path of evolving consciousness, and none are as yet anywhere near the ideal, or goal. It is ignorance of the full significance of this gap in consciousness, which is the primary cause of misunderstandings between peoples of different races. It is a peoples culture, the society they create for themselves which is the true expression of their stage of consciousness at any given time, and not subsequent theorising about it by intellectuals and axe-grinding historians centuries later. At the time of European colonisation of this country Maori consciousness and culture stood at a much earlier stage than that of Europe. It was in fact stone age. Whatever the reasons for this were, they were entirely the affair of Maori, and had nothing to do with Europeans. Therefore blame for Maori disadvantage flowing from these circumstances cannot sensibly be levelled at Europeans.

Thus I hold it to be a nonsense if modern Maori claim any exact comprehension of the consciousness and soul life of their ancient ancestors. Similarly, Europeans cannot, and do not, claim any real understanding of, for example, their ancient Celtic ancestors, and the world view which stood behind their mysterious culture. A culture, incidentally, which bore distinct similarities to that of the ancient Maori, for the excellent reason that it was at this time, (approximately 3,000 years ago), that Europeans were close to the stage of consciousness as that of the Maori at the time of colonisation. In this country today there are people of predominantly European ancestry, who incorrectly call themselves Maori, and who conveniently believe that their alleged "plight" is the direct consequence of past loss of land or alleged "suppression". It is no such thing. For reasons which have nothing to do with anybody but themselves, the level of Maori society and culture at the time of colonisation was thousands of years behind that of Europe, and indeed behind most of humanity. It is just this which is the the overwhelming cause of any disadvantage among those Maori who have not applied themselves to take advantage of all that European colonisation has placed before them. Prior to colonisation Maori knew nothing of the rest of the world, nor of the rest of humanity and its ageless, rich, and turbulent history. The ancient New Zealand Maoris were truly exiles, geographically, culturally, and socially. With the advent of colonisation, the Maori were faced with the task of catching up on something like 3-5,000 years of social evolution, and with the consciousness which stood behind this evolution. The Europeans could not do this for them, but could, and did, provide them with the means to achieve it, namely education, not only in the formal sense, but in the widest possible sense, i.e. by exposing them to the world, and the world to them. It could not have been any other way.

The so called plight of Maori is no worse these days than the plight of a much greater number of non Maori, and has little or nothing to do with loss of land, but everything to do with an ancient consciousness and culture struggling to come to terms with an alien, modern, and global civilisation in the space of little more than one and a half centuries.

A personal comment here will clarify this point. My own father arrived in this country in 1952, alone, not knowing a soul, and with five pounds and a couple of suitcases to his name. He was a tradesman, and he built a good life for himself and his family through nothing more mysterious than steady work. He owned no land, either then or later. The same is true of many thousands of other migrants from Europe and other parts of the world.
Again, let it be understood that the phenomenon of the great voyages of discovery and colonisation initiated by the Western European nations in the fifteenth century, lies deeper than any motives of these nations themselves. Regardless of any spirit of adventure or national expansionary ambitions, a greater hand and an inner necessity is always behind such significant world events. Nearly 3,000 years ago Alexander's armies conquered, but inaugurated a higher level of civilisation to much of the then known world. Then the power of Rome arose and ruled for many centuries. In the ninth and tenth centuries the Vikings were voyaging to the east coast of North America and penetrating south and east overland at least as far as the Holy land. Already there were their earlier predecessors. In the early eighth century vast Islamic armies invaded North Africa, and East and South Western Europe, penetrating deep into France and eastwards to India. The oldest sagas of human history, those of ancient China, India and Persia are replete with titanic struggles concerned, in part, with the spreading of their religion and culture. The greater part of human history was played out against the background of such utterly typical human migratory and colonising behaviour, the Maori being no exception. The deeper reasons for such things can never be learned by the dangerous superficiality of currently prevailing attitudes in New Zealand. We could just as well inquire as to what evolutionary power or impulse underlies the rise and fall of the great Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, or Roman civilisations, which, each in their turn, represented the pinnacle of human culture, and the cutting edge of evolving human consciousness. There are answers to such questions.

"You can't make cakes without breaking eggs".

The ancestors of the Maoris, of course, made no contribution to this above mentioned eight to nine thousand years of human progress. For all of this vast span of time they were living in primitivism somewhere on the Pacific rim or in South East Asia; and in the case of the non progressive radicals it shows.

Colonisation then, was no chance event, or good or bad luck, depending upon ones point of view. It had to happen sooner or later, and such things always happen, in point of fact, "in their season". Again, it must be emphasised that the Maori is not indigenous to this country. They too are migrants and colonisers, and their near genocide of the then resident population, the Tangata Maori- ori, or Waitaha, (see Barry Brailsfords work, and the writings of Bishop Selwyn etc - among many others), hardly provides a moral basis for their grievances and claims. Indeed, just recently people claiming descendency from the Maori- ori/Waitaha apparently feel that they have a prior claim to land which some Maoris regard as historically theirs. As soon as the question of justice is raised therefore, we are on shaky ground indeed; for where shall we make a beginning? The fact that Maori speak so freely of injustice and grievance despite their own savage history, (of which they are well aware), is a paradox only to those who have no understanding of tribal consciousness. Suffice to say, that while the sense of grievance and revenge is strong in tribal consciousness, that of conscience and guilt is not.

Claims that Maori are disadvantaged and discriminated against by the majority culture are not supported by the facts which show quite the opposite. (The very few who are prepared to look objectively at social trends over the last three or four decades will see that the social group most discriminated against these days is young, white, men. The shocking suicide rate of this latter group throughout much of the English speaking world speaks for itself.) Since the signing of the treaty, Maori have had, by law, the same rights and privileges of any other citizen, plus a considerable number of special rights and privileges exclusive to them. When in addition to this it is realised that $1.656 billion of tax payers money has been given to a variety of Maori trusts and organisations between 1985/6 and 1992/3, quite apart from the huge ongoing treaty of Waitangi settlements, it is hard to see what rational argument could be raised against the contention that Maori are one of the most privileged races in the world. This being so, the cause of any failure of individual Maoris to sufficiently better themselves, must be sought outside of the absurd allegation of "suppression". The tiresome mantras that the education system, the economy, the justice system, the health system etc, has "failed Maori" is typical of politically correct "thought". Mainly due to extreme Left wing secular ideology, all of these institutions have, to some extent, been failing everyone for decades now. Such systemic failings are national, even international, not racially specific. Therefore, if there is a difference between Maori and other races in relation to all these social services then it is self evident that the difference must lie in Maori themselves. This difference is not the fault of Europeans. If Maori do not feel "comfortable" with modern medicine, education, technology, justice, etcetera, then what were the British colonists to do? Revert to tribalism themselves? forget thousands of years of their their own civilisation? to be "culturally safe? to make Maoris feel comfortable? 2,500 years ago a Greek philosopher said, 'There is nothing permanent except change". We all must adapt to change and Maori are no exception. The truth is that not all Maori fail, and not all Europeans succeed, which proves that success or failure depends upon the individual, not the race. Like anyone else Maori are suppressed by nothing but their own shortcomings.

There is, of course, and always has been, much justified criticism of European culture also, and in a different context my voice is included in this. Doubtlessly all would agree that despite millennia of slow development we human beings are still far from perfect, to say the least! Nevertheless, Western European civilisation, imperfect as it may be, bears deep within its soul the seeds of renewal and progress. Pre colonial Maori culture, as a last remnant of a truly ancient stage of human development contained no such seeds. It was on an involutionary path of decline, hence a new and unifying impulse had to come, and the old, true Maori I contend, knew this. Here we encounter another of the innumerable deceits of political correctness. The old time, true Maoris knew, probably by means of remnants of the old visionary consciousness, that times were changing, that the old ways must go. Thus it was they more than the colonial authorities, who insisted that their children learn English in the schools which were provided for the education of both European and Maori children alike. For the very same reasons they closed their ancient spiritual centres. No attempt was made by European authorities, and nor would it have been feasible to try to prevent Maori from teaching their children their mother tongue from birth to school age, or from speaking Maori while they were in their own company, or indeed at any time at all outside of school hours. Nothing could have been more impossible. If Maori of the time, for whatever reason, did not try to preserve their language, then this is the strongest possible evidence that like so many other ancient and now extinct languages the time for its demise had come. The present day attempts by people of mixed Maori and European ancestry to revive the old Maori culture and language are based more upon a mix of ideology, romanticism, atavism, and propaganda than anything real. Many of us, faced with the responsibility of adulthood, dream nostalgically of our relatively carefree, (if rose tinted), childhood. However we accept that we cannot return to it. Neither should we act like children.

The renewing impulse finally came via the Europeans, and as is always the case in human affairs, it came imperfectly. Anyone who is an objective observer of human nature, including their own, will not be surprised at this; but measured on the scale of such things, and bearing in mind the record of Maori themselves as colonisers and conquerors, then as far as their treatment at the hands of the British is concerned Maori had a very gentle transition into the modern world. This is another point which was made by Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Peter Buck, and other Maori leaders of their time. Certainly, no injustice inflicted upon Maori by Europeans can compare in the slightest degree to the injustices Maori inflicted upon the resident population they found in New Zealand, and upon each other throughout centuries of internecine warfare, slaughter, slavery, and cannibalism. Dispossessing each other, not only of each others land and freedom, but of life itself was the way of life of the warrior Maori, and this continued long into post colonial times, with the aid of that most coveted of all European inventions - the musket. In anticipation of the usual unthinking reaction to this, it should be pointed out that the modern European wars were aberrations in otherwise advanced and civilised cultures. The point being, that these wars were not, (like tribal wars) an inevitable consequence of the stage of European social development. The real causes is these terrible wars are still little understood, highly complex, and beyond the subject of this essay. Even so, these wars obviously represent a great moral failure on the part of the European peoples. One aspect of this failure has not been overcome to this very day, and finds expression in the present ultra Left wing, secular humanistic, politically correct attitudes which have played a major part in undermining public morality and thereby exacerbating all social problems throughout the entire English speaking world.

The truth, universally denied as it may be, is that the Maori was saved by colonisation. Maori culture was in a serious state of decline and had been an anachronism in the world for long centuries before Europeans set foot on these shores. Many examples could be cited to verify this without recourse to the cultural nadir to which the abomination of cannibalism indisputably testifies. (refer to 19th century works such as "Old New Zealand" by Judge F.E.Manning , "Some Home Truths re The Maori Wars", (1863 - 1869 - the West coast), by Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton, (1829 - 1903). This latter book clearly shows the tragic consequences for many early British soldiers and settlers of the then already emerging Western pseudo liberalism, of which Jean Jacques Rousseau's "noble savage" delusion is an example. Such unrealistic romanticism was adopted by many of the British middle/upper class from whose ranks most of the New Zealand colonial authorities and missionaries were drawn. Such modes of thought are still alive and well among today's intelligentsia whom, quite impervious to the lessons of history and contemporary life still impose their theories upon the long suffering public. The birth of true western liberalism in the early 19th century which originally championed tolerance of differing opinions, was so quickly usurped by collectivist/socialist/Marxist type thinking that it was virtually stillborn. Tolerance for opposing views is no part of modern "liberal" political correctness.

As pointed out, between six and four thousand years B.C the great Indian and Persian civilisations were enormously more advanced than Maori culture was even seven thousand years later, i.e, approximately at the time of European colonisation. Following these civilisations came the magnificence of the Egyptian/Chaldean civilisations, to be followed in turn by the glory of Greece and Rome. During all of this period of history, Western Europe was in relative barbarism, but the accumulated fruits of all these past civilisations, by the process of conquest, and colonisation, continued their westward flow, fructifying the cultures of the vigorous western European peoples with potent, renewing forces; so that after the fall of Rome they gradually gained in power and influence. By the late middle ages Western Europe had assumed its current position as the worlds leading civilisation. The typical objection to this latter point is usually overcome the moment it is realised that the achievements of Western civilisation, (which is the first civilisation to become truly global), are but the further developed and metamorphosed fruits of all the great civilisations which preceded and flowed into it.....

Continued at Part Two