9 Blogs‎ > ‎Colin Rawle‎ > ‎

Part Two

ESSAY PART TWO (continued from part one)

Today, quite properly, Western Anglo/American culture embraces the whole world. The only too obvious and premature decline in this culture is a world tragedy inasmuch as it necesarily effects the whole world, but its root cause is not a part of the present subject, and an exploration of the subject is far beyond its scope. Its only relevance here, is that this world moral and social decline is, in one way or another, having a deeply detrimental effect upon everyone, and not just upon people such as Maoris. It is this failure of Western civilisation wherein some measure of resentment on the part of colonised peoples is justified, because it has led to the subsequent failure to provide an adequate moral-ethical example and to create social structures and conditions appropriate to the times we live in. Again I stress, that one of the main underlying causes of this grave omission is the same deep inner dishonesty which today finds its ultimate expression in the ultra Left wing politically correct delirium. What the politically correct, pseudo liberal critics fail to see is that many of the admitted failures and mistakes of Western societies over the last two centuries, which they so piously criticise, are very largely the consequence of their type of thinking.

The rapidity and eagerness with which the original true Maori put aside their old ways and embraced European civilisation and technology is proof enough that the demise of their old ways was not merely timely, but long overdue. The moment Maori eyes fell upon a sharp steel shovel, for instance, they never laid a hand on the old digging stick again. The unfolding tragedy in New Zealand, is not that the Maori have lost their old cultural heritage, but that the Europeans have lost theirs, and with it their self confidence and all sense of direction.

To reiterate, the demise of the old tribal Maori culture was timely. The current decline of Western civilisation is a consequence of the repudiation of its founding Christian values, and is many centuries premature.

I do not have the slightest doubt that injustices were inflicted upon Maori by the colonial powers. Nor do I have the slightest doubt that injustices were perpetrated upon colonists by Maori. The difference is, that in the latter case such incidences are largely forgotten, disregarded, or seen as irrelevant today. They are seen as bygones, and herein lies another example of the important difference between Maori and European consciousness which I have stressed, and which at all times should be taken into account. In simple terms, to the extent that the old tribal consciousness persists today, it clings to grievances, apparently indefinitely. There is a baseless assumption that because Maori have in some cases been nursing grievances for more than a century that this somehow authenticates them - proves their validity. The naiveté of this attitude would appear to challenge all normal notions of discernment and commonsense. It's not as if there were any lack of present day instances of the penchant of Maori to turn the facts of clear cut cases completely on their head. Often in such cases those in a position to object appear to lose the power of speech. This mesmeric phenomenon only seems to apply to Europeans when relating to Maori. No doubt modern psychiatry, given the will, could come up with a diagnosis of this condition. Given the present social conditions, everything that can reasonably be done for Maori, has, or is, being done. It is hard to imagine what else can be done without further penalising the many other disadvantaged New Zealanders. Already this country has trespassed into overt condescension towards Maori and blatant pro Maori discrimination. The wonder is that Maori do not appear to be offended by it. Here is another example of the difference between Maori and European consciousness. Surely it is obvious that it is not those who expect Maori to make their own way in the world on an equal footing with other people who are the racists. The real racists are the condescending liberals who insist upon special rights, privileges, and assistance for Maori. The insulting implications of this attitude are very clear. Special privileges and rights, either bestowed or withheld according to race, is, precisely, racial discrimination, and no good can come of it. Special privileges and rights cannot end any real or perceived racial inequality, they can only entrench it.

"There are few liberals who do not have a well furnished compartment of race prejudice, even if it's usually suppressed". - Gunner Myrdal

The only real way to true social equality is to ensure that there are no barriers whatsoever to prevent individuals from achieving their own personal potential. There are endless implications in this simple statement, nevertheless this is the ideal to be aspired for, and no amount of hand outs can substitute for it. Education, knowledge, is the great leveller, and it has always been available to Maori up to the highest level. However, it remains the prerogative of Maori to value it, and seek it. It is not my intention to denigrate Maori culture as nothing constructive could result from this. My only intention is to get to the truth of matters, regardless of how unpalatable this may be, because it is only from a position of truth and reality that any effective remedial action can take its start. If the truth is seen as denigrating or racist, then obviously this is an error of judgement. I have not mentioned the good aspects of Maori culture because the good, of course, plays no part in the problems I am addressing. Besides, as a one-sided emphasis of the positive qualities of Maori culture is the main currency of so much "education" and literature these days, my contribution is hardly needed.

To avoid serious racial problems in the future it is absolutely imperative that an honest striving for truth is aspired to in New Zealand today, to offset the false interpretation of this country's history according to revisionist history and political correct indoctrination which has been intensifying over the last four decades.

The astonishing, and apparently unacceptable fact, which nevertheless should be accepted and faced, is that Maori culture was still stoneage right up to the time of European colonisation, and, but for colonisation, would be still. This is assuming that the culture could have survived at all. If the impossible were to be imagined, i.e, that this country had not been discovered by anyone apart from Polynesians to the present day, then a situation would exist wherein an ancient culture which had not progressed to the stage of the wheel, metallurgy, literature, mathematics or even the bow and arrow etc, and which had no knowledge of the rest of humanity, or of world history, would unknowingly co-exist with cultures of enormous sophistication which, for example, are capable of sending space probes far into the solar system! Personally, I do not think that this latter type of technological intelligence is as valuable, or as needed these days as other more humanitarian disciplines and qualities, neither is it valid to compare the relative merits of old and modern civilisations. Nevertheless, it is valid to enquire whether Maori, given the choice, would have preferred the above hypothetical scenario or the actual one, notwithstanding their grievances.

Such honest thinking should be included, along with the prevailing prescribed attitudes and trends in thought concerning Maori issues and colonisation etcetera, so that these matters may be seen in their proper historical, human, and world context. As a stoneage people Maori, at the time of colonisation still retained certain qualities and faculties which Europeans had, of necessity, lost in the long march of civilisation and in the process of developing the new faculties prerequisite to the dawn of the scientific age. For the same reason the Maori also lacked many qualities and faculties. Cunning however, as a prerequsite to survival in a savage society, they never lacked. When, during the 1960's, the Left wing, anti-Western, noble savage type thinking finally gained ascendancy throughout the entire Western world, it was as Manna from heaven to the native cunning of Maori radicals. From then on the path to the present dire state of affairs was wide open, the way having been piously cleared by the misguided idealism of the anti-western, Left wing "intellectuals".

With regard to "trends in thought", I believe this to be a contradiction in terms; inasmuch as real thought does not follow trends I am attempting to show the critical importance of the necessity of taking into full account the different consciousness and world view of the Maori from that of the European, or Pakeha.

The very fact that the treaty is misused and misinterpreted in such a transparent, partisan way by some Maori is, as has been pointed out, wholly attributable to, and consistent with the old tribal consciousness, which their politically correct and "culturally safe" sycophants seem to have adopted. Due to the servile attitude adopted by the "intelligentsia" and the indoctrinated of this country towards anything designated, (incorrectly), as indigenous, the radicals have now realised that they can claim the treaty to mean anything they wish it to mean. Despite the fact that it was conceived, draughted, and communicated to Maori by the British, it seems that nowadays only Maori are capable of interpreting it - and its recently discovered "spirit" and "principles". An apparently serious attempt was made to gain control of radio and television broadcasting in New Zealand, based on the assertion that the treaty implies Maori ownership of the air! (air being the transmitting medium of television and radio signals.) Other such examples could be cited. As the result of generations of anti "Pakeha" self indoctrination and encouragement from politically correct social engineers, many modern Maori now have unrealistic and quite unacceptable expectations.

It is socially irresponsible for government to acquiesce to ridiculous and anti-social Maori demands. For the sake of the future welfare of all New Zealanders government must not allow itself to be dictated to by those whose demands arise directly out of a past consciousness which is quite out of place at the end of the 20th century. To allow such atavistic and divisive attitudes to be instrumental in determining social policy is to turn ones back on thousands of years of social evolution and can only contribute to the already rapid social decline. Already government has gone too far down this road, so that an apartheid system which so many people have correctly warned against, reminiscent of South Africa, (only less honest), is beginning to take shape. How many times will we have to revisit the mistakes of the past before we learn that appeasement never works?

As I write these things I cannot dispel a feeling of despair that things have now come to such a pass that they need to be said at all! Given a properly informed and educated public, such things would be common knowledge.

If those who are advocating the transfer to Maori of enormously valuable tracts of land and assets, which have largely been created by the intelligence, toil and vision of non Maori people, hope by this means to placate the grievances of Maori, then they could not be more mistaken; and such mistakes, as has been stressed, arise out of a lack of understanding of militant tribal consciousness.

My personal concern is not so much the injustices themselves perpetrated upon non Maori by the present agenda of treaty "settlements", but the social upheavals which without fail, sooner or later, always attend such injustices. In anticipation of the predictable response to this, I must again say that the injustices which Maori experienced as a consequence of colonisation were minor on the scale of such things, not major, and that such injustices have been more than compensated for by the endless advantages of modern civilisation, (yes, and its challenges), introduced by British/European colonisation.

It is not out of any personal need that I make these observations, nor do I take any pleasure in doing so; and neither would it be necessary if commonsense and good will were a part of these matters. I make these points only because few other people seem to be doing so, and because the present circumstances demand it. It is absolutely imperative that some counterbalance is provided to the high moral ground and psychological advantage gained by Maori with regard to their grievances due to the false impression of New Zealand's history and colonisation engineered by Maori militancy and politically correct indoctrination.

I know only too well that it is not politically correct to say these things, which is exactly why they must be said.

Europeans came to this country to show the way, not just in the economic and scientific sense, but also, and more importantly, in the sphere of social ethics. Up to the early 1900's this was partially achieved. It was about this time in history that Europeans in New Zealand as much as elsewhere in the world, seemed to forget who, and what they are. From then on they progressively abandoned their proper tasks and responsibilities.

If those would should assume proper responsibility in moral leadership do not do so, then those who should not, and cannot, will. (Or will try to.) This is what is happening in New Zealand today.

The greatest mistakes made in this country were not made by the colonials and their immediate descendants, but have been made since the beginning of the 20th century, and more especially over approximately the last fifty years. These grievous mistakes have been perpetrated by those who about this time began to call themselves "Kiwis", and who mistakenly felt that in the necessary process of developing their own unique identity they must reject their immensely rich British/European heritage. The tragedy of this is equalled only by its impossibility. When the European people of this nation have attained maturity and confidence in their self identity, then that identity will be the sum total of the qualities and attributes gained through the New Zealand experience since colonial times, combined with thousands of years of their European heritage.

I am fairly certain that some of what has been said will be regarded as racist, which, if so, does not bode well for the future of New Zealand, because nothing racist has been said. What has been stressed is the important differences between the European and Maori races, which is the pivotal point upon which this whole matter turns. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority but one of maturity. (Although, having said this, I must concede that as a result of the gross materialism and consequent ethical decline of the international Western world already referred to, this civilisation has lost its way, and now appears as anything but mature.) This difference, which Maori themselves are constantly at pains to emphasise, is ignored at our peril, because even though the things we share in common simply by being human far outweigh our differences, it is nevertheless our differences which if not understood, can be the cause of problems.

Despite differences in consciousness we all must live in the world as it is today. I am all in favour of giving special help to Maori, if the need is there, but need must be the criterion for help, not race. Special help, privileges etcetera, asked for, and given indiscriminately on a racial basis is precisely the racial discrimination which New Zealanders profess to abhor. Human need knows no racial boundaries.

The way to help Maori is not different from the way to help anybody else. Namely, to aspire to the creation of a society which values the family at least as much as anything else; and ensures that all families can support themselves in a manner commensurate with human dignity on one income. By this means wives and mothers could chose to be real homemakers and then there would be some chance that children would be properly raised. Implicit in this is the opportunity for all to partake in artistic, cultural, and recreational pursuits which are essential to a healthy, well balanced life in both the physical and the psychological sense. By whatever means it may be arranged, there must be no barriers, financial, social, or otherwise, to Maori, or anyone else, to all social services, and especially education at all levels. The cultivation of Maori culture and language should be entirely the affair and responsibility of Maori. This would then be a part of their free choice of cultural/artistic activity, and they, just as anybody else, should have the personal, (not taxpayer) resources to pursue such interests. Self determination on the basis of race in today's cosmopolitan societies is a huge leap backwards and entirely irreconcilable with the general spirit of the times. It is in fact, not achievable, and therefore attempts to implement such a policy will only result in further polarisation. The social ideal to be aspired to is the creation of social circumstances wherein self determination on an individual basis, is within the means of everyone, but under universal democratic government. These aims would be quite achievable given a properly structured society, which in itself would strongly mitigate against the anti social impulses provoked by present social structures.

While some measure of Maori resentment is understandably, (bearing in mind tribal consciousness), due to grievances over unavoidable loss of land, much of this resentment is, I am certain, at the subconscious level and more to do with a perceived loss of Mana and the old (rose tinted) way of life; the real passing of which was nothing but the inexorable tread of evolution. Thus a large measure of Maori resentment is directed at European New Zealanders only for want of a better target - i.e. out of ignorance of the real cause of any real or imagined disadvantage - i.e. their backward stage of development.

The European colonists were only the agents of the demise of the old Maori culture; not the cause. The real cause of the passing of the old Maori culture was the inexorable progress of evolution. To believe otherwise is to attribute to Europeans greater than human powers.

For the future welfare of race relations in New Zealand it behoves the Maori malcontents to clearly identify the real cause of their various grievances, so that they themselves may become cognisant of those grievances which might justifiably be levelled at Europeans, or the government, and those which can not, and of those which can be rectified, and those which can not.

Alleged colonial injustices were perpetrated neither by present people, nor upon present people, therefore current resentment among individuals can only be on the basis of race i.e. racism. Consciously or unconsciously, there is an element of revenge, ("Utu"), in Maori radicalism. This again is clear evidence of the fall back into tribal consciousness, and, in accordance with everything that has been said, this is unrealistic, uncalled for, and unhelpful. Utu was a common Maori practice, and without doubt the major cause of ongoing tribal vendetta. For example, a typically complicated dispute involving a woman and consequent Utu, (or "Whakahe" - "putting the other in the wrong"), between Wiremu Kingi Te Rangitaake (Te Whiti) of the Atiawa, and Teira, a minor chief, was highly instrumental in the deception and confusion surrounding the ill-fated Waitara purchase which led to the Parihaka eviction, (in which no one was killed or wounded.) Briefly stated Teira offered to sell the Waitara block to the British to cause enmity between the British and Wiremu Kingi. This story is even recorded in a haka song of the Atiawa. In clearing the Maoris from the disputed land the government of the time arguably made an error in judgement, (even if the tribes in question had already been conquered and scattered by the Waikato tribes), and no doubt the urgent need of the continually arriving settlers for land added to the tension. It must have seemed an insoluble dilemma; something had to give. It seems that there can be no easy way for native peoples of colonised lands to be brought forward into the mainstream of world evolution.

Nor is the process easy for the pioneering settlers. The only question, (which is not really a question at all), is whether or not undeveloped peoples and the parts of the earth they occupied should have been left as they were, or integrated into the rest of humanity and the progressive world. Apart from being far more benign, the only essential difference between British colonisation and its historical precedents is that it was global, occurred at the dawn of the technological age and mass international communication, and within living memory of shallow modern attitudes. The countless conquests and colonisation's of ancient times, such as those of Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, Islam, and of the Maori etc were very straight forward in this respect. The consciousness of those times would admit of none of the ethical dilemmas that the present self-condemning Western consciousness has visited upon itself. Due to the current soul withering materialism of the Western world, the beginnings of which can be traced back to the 15th century, the emerging new consciousness of the English speaking peoples has been thoroughly distorted, and with regard to sociological thinking has now degenerated into a cringing self depreciating pseudo liberalism which is inevitably being ruthlessly exploited by those possessed of a much earlier, less conscience stricken mentality. In the ages preceding the rise of Western civilisation there were simply the conquerors and the conquered. While innumerable cultures outwardly appeared to simply vanish, in fact their fruits were absorbed into the subsequent civilisation, as in the case of Egypt/Greece/Rome etc. Such things are a tragedy only to those who have no feel for evolution or spirituality and thus overvalue the physical. It is hardly the case that minor or less progressive cultures which are assimilated by dominant cultures formerly lived lives of perfect peace and harmony. On the contrary, cultures, civilisations are invariably conquered or absorbed in their decadent and declining stages. This was certainly true of the Maoris.

Those people who wish to believe that conflict between Maori and Pakeha must always be entirely the fault of the latter should strive for the objectivity I have been recommending. The need to place blame is not a pretty aspect of human nature, and those people who will look anywhere but to Maori themselves for the cause of their alleged "plight", should ask themselves - who is to "blame" for the fact that Maori were in such a primitive state at the time of colonisation? They should ask this question of themselves because it is entirely to this circumstance that the main part of any Maori disadvantage must be attributed.

Nothing is to be gained by seeking scape goats, but if the need to blame cannot be sublimated, then it should be regarded as a collective blame. Only when such attitudes are overcome will it be seen that the things we share in common as human beings outshine our petty racial differences as the Sun outshines a candle. The root cause of the conflict between Europeans and the old time Maori was, again, the then unbridgeable gap in consciousness , which, due to intermarriage and education will eventually disappear. It was the consciousness of the Europeans which inaugurated the dawn of the scientific, industrial, technological age. An intrinsic part of this scientific revolution was the advent of global navigation, which, in its turn inevitably brought Europeans to the shores of New Zealand. This event in itself, was no mere chance and was not wrong. Similarly it was the consciousness of the Maori which had held them in a primitive limbo. This essay is not the place to explore the reasons why there is such a huge variation in consciousness, from the very ancient to the very modern in the different branches of the human family, but whatever these reasons are they cannot be the fault of Europeans.

If New Zealand was to become a part of the evolving modern world, (and realistically,there was no other alternative), then one way or another the settlers had to take possession of enough land to develop a viable agricultural basis to sustain the growing young colony and to establish the beginnings of a domestic economy. All those who require food, clothing, and shelter to live will understand this. Had the Maoris been capable and willing to do this, then some co-operative arrangement might have been possible, but of course they were not. (Not initially at least.) Prior to colonisation Maori were more hunter/gatherers than agriculturists. They were only at the very beginnings of the agricultural stage of development, still practising the slash and burn method. Only later were they to grow introduced crops with the aid of European farm tools, machinery, draught animals, and techniques. Nothing was withheld from Maori by the European colonists. The endless riches of world civilisation were placed at their disposal by means of the education provided for them. In teaching them to read and write the English language, the colonists effectively gave Maori the world. In return, all that was asked, or needed, was land. Raw, unimproved land, upon which to set the foundations of a nation. Land which in almost all cases was paid for, (sometimes more than once) at a mutually agreed price. Occasionally land was confiscated - "the spoils of war", (which is something that Maori most definitely understand). But even in this case its produce contributed in diverse ways to the general commonwealth of the of the fledgling nation By means of the kind of foresight, determination, skill, and Herculean labour that few of their present day critics can comprehend, the pioneering settlers eventually made the land productive in an endless diversity of ways for the benefit of all New Zealanders. As in all things human mistakes were made, but it is a mean spirit who judges his fellow man solely by his mistakes.

The battles which attended colonisation, the so called Maori wars, cannot be compared in any way to the warfare of the ancient Maori. Nothing new resulted from tribal conflict, it was simply a struggle for supremacy, usually over land or resources, or as a result of retributive Utu. Such warfare had no wider significance or consequence beyond the individuals concerned. By contrast the conflicts of colonisation totally and forever changed New Zealand as a country and the Maori as a people. Nor can it be said that Maori did not wholeheartedly join in these inevitable and necessary changes. They eagerly, and sensibly, seized everything Europeans could offer which could be of assistance to them; be it metal implements and equipment, together with every other form of technology available at the time. With equal insight they accepted the necessity of learning English and the endless fount of knowledge to which this is the gateway. All this inevitably led to rapidly changing attitudes and lifestyles. Of course, here we are speaking of the true, aboriginal Maori. Unfortunately, as is always the case with colonisation, Maori with equal enthusiasm, also adopted all the negative aspects of civilisation, particularly alcohol, (and latterly marijuana etc). It is well known that some Chiefs, seeing the effects of this, wisely prohibited alcohol to their people. The King movement was one example. However, human nature being what it is, these circumstances did not endure. Accusations of racial discrimination began and eventually the prohibition was ended. If further proof were needed of the persistence, and indeed of a latterly reversion to attitudes that belong to the ancient past in some current Maori ambitions, then demands for racial self determination, separate development, their own legal and education systems etc, surely provides it. European New Zealanders, who's whole cultural history for more than two thousand years is imbued with the maturing spirit of democracy and individualism, should absolutely refuse to entertain this.

Having said this, it remains true that such understandable, but unrealistic desires of Maori are, to some extent, due to social circumstances brought about by the moral decline in Western civilisation which has been referred to, and which has allowed the present disastrous social circumstances to come about. Even so, Maori ambitions of racial self determination and separate development are no answer. Such a course of action would be the ultimate blind alley, leading at best to nothingness, and at worst to racial conflict. The only answer is for Western society to again take up it's responsibilities and create a social organism which aspires to justice for all (is there any other kind?, and which, while recognising ethnic diversity, determines its direction and policies not upon racial or any other distinction, but upon democratic principals, absolute equality, and the universal HUMANITY of all people. As has been pointed out above, a truly just democratic society arranged in accordance with human nature, and therefore able to meet the needs of human nature, would ensure that, as long as other peoples rights are not infringed, there would be nothing to prevent Maori, or any other ethnic group from pursuing their particular cultural interests.

"The prejudices of ignorance are more easily removed than the prejudices of interest - the first are blindly adopted, the second wilfully preferred". - Gordon.W.Allport.

The situation is now enormously exacerbated by the ill will of the indoctrinated radicals (who being of mixed blood, seem to embody the worst characteristics of both races, and who, supported by politically correct nonsense, cynically exploit any grey area of past events to what they imagine will be their advantage. Today, the treaty, conveniently misinterpreted by subversive activists and combined with European jurisprudence, ultra Left wing judicial activism, and highly paid lawyers, is being used as a weapon by ignorant people who care nothing for the future well-being of New Zealand as a whole. "Honouring" the treaty should work both ways. Radical rhetoric about Maori sovereignty and not recognising "Pakeha" law, is a breach of the treaty.

With breathtaking inconsistency and cynicism such rhetoric is blithely combined with demands to "honour the treaty" and appeals by Maori to the Privy council in London to overturn decisions made in New Zealand which are not to their liking. The Maori radicals exploit the democratic legal process only as long as it is advantageous to them, at which point they abandon it and revert to pre treaty tribal tactics with the claim that they do not recognise "Pakeha law". The sad fact that real democracy has become more a receding dream than a reality in New Zealand today is obviously a part of the problem, and entirely the consequence of ethical failures of European civilisation previously referred to. In truth the treaty/grievance problem in its entirety should be seen as symptomatic of the decline of the democratic spirit in this country.

For Maoris, and for obvious reasons, indifference to democracy is understandable. In Europeans it is unforgivable.

The absurdity of some of the decisions arrived at by innumerable hui's, and such bodies as the Maori Council and the Waitangi tribunal etc show that neither logic, realism, goodwill, nor any spirit of democracy can survive the highly emotive atmosphere of these exclusively Maori meetings. It is clear from their outcomes that these closed gatherings are more councils of war than forums for the useful and representative points of view to be found in wider society. Clearly it is the old time rhetoric which holds sway in such gatherings, whipping up the emotions and producing confrontational, carved in greenstone dictates which are invariably irreconcilable with both reason, reality, and democracy. In such hot house environments the agenda is laid down. The agenda is racial dominance, and the weapon, as in days of old, is inflammatory rhetoric.

One of the few things that Dr Ranginui Walker has ever said which one can agree with, is that Maori are masters of theatre. How true, and how typical of the politically correct that they are fooled by such self serving brinkmanship.

To Maori of the time, loss of largely unused land was more significant as a loss of Mana than anything else. Only later, and as a result of European colonisation, technology and hard work did land begin to assume its economic potential and value. While the intrinsic aesthetic, spirtitual, and ecological value of land for all peoples is obvious, it only acquired economic value in the modern sense, in New Zealand, through the advent of colonisation. The purely economic value of unmodified land to primitive societies rested soley upon what naturally occuring resources a hunter/gatherer could glean from it. Its modern economic value depends upon what it can produce under skilled human stewardship.

Similarly the economic value of natural raw materials in the earth, be they minerals, oil, gold, timber or whatever else, is relative to the knowledge and technology required to locate, recognise, extract and utilise them. Natural resouces of any kind do not acquire economic value until human beings transform them into useful commodities by dint of their initiative, intelligence and work.

Land grievances would not be such an effective weapon of the Maori activists if it was understood that loss of land per sec was not such an economic disadvantage to them as they claim. Obviously, economic advantage cannot accrue from land until it is managed to economic ends. Similarly, economic disadvantage can only result from land lost or sold to the extent that it was, or would have been economically worked. To this very day a significant proportion of Maori land is under utilised in the economic sense, or is leased to others to manage to their economic benefit. In cases where Maori land was eventually worked by them in post colonial times to their economic advantage, this too only became possible by virtue of social/economic circumstances resulting from European colonisation. The same applies to all "God-given" natural resources, including the bounty of the sea. As pointed out , one way or another Europeans had to take possession of large enough areas of productive land to be in a position to create the beginnings of a domestic economy and eventually a modern democratic nation. It is not necessary for Maori, or anyone else to actually possess great areas of land to share in the bounty it produces in the hands of skilled, hardworking people. As social order gradually began to establish itself, desired commodities could be procured by trade, or money could be earned to purchase goods and services. The apparently deep anguish of Maori over loss of land contains a good measure of theatre - a tool in the cause of the real aim, which is overwhelmingly about money, political power and becoming a socio/political elite - served by the "Tauiwi". Strictly speaking land, (an everlasting thing) should not be owned by any person, (transient things); but it should always be controlled by those who can make the best use of it for the benefit of all. To those with such a proper attitude towards land the question of its ownership would be far less pertinent than its role as a provider of employment and required consumer products.

Again, from the earliest contact between Europeans and Maoris, and certainly since the beginning of colonisation proper, nothing of civilisations creations and achievements were withheld from Maori. Everything - from foodstuffs, clothing, medicine, tools and equipment of every description, education and legal rights were, when it became possible, freely offered. The fruits of world civilisation was theirs for the asking. All that was required of them was to educate themselves to an appreciation of its true value and utility. Of course, they were also exposed to the negative aspects of civilisation, but such is the nature of life.

The common characteristic of persistent appeals to the Privy Council and other international bodies to support all manner of Maori grievances is that they are the result of tribal instincts which progressive Maoris have put behind them.

A prerequisite to Maori ambitions of "sovereignty" and presumably a "sovereign" is a sense of "nation". Maori had no such sense of nationhood. They were a disparate scattering of autonomous warring tribes whose territorial boundaries fluctuated according to the fortunes of war. Tribalism utterly nullifies any possibility of nationhood or sovereignty. They are mutually exclusive. The concept of sovereignty could only have been introduced to Maori by Europeans, (no doubt well meaning missionaries), which is why northern Maori, "advised" by missionaries and James Busby, had to invent an equivalent concept upon which to base their 1835 declaration of independence. From the deception of a Maori "nationhood" implicit in this declaration, arose the questionable idea of the Treaty of Waitangi between the British Crown and the illusory "Maori nation" - an illusion which should have been perfectly obvious from the fact that the treaty could not be signed by one "Sovereign", but had to be signed by each individual chief. In his 1877 ruling, the Chief Justice of New Zealand, Sir James Prendergast declared the first article of the treaty "a simple nullity" on precisely this point. Namely, that not being a sovereign people Maori could not cede sovereignty.

The British, in accordance with all world historical precedent assumed sovereignty upon the basis that they were capable of doing so, and in this instance, as a urgent necessity of the time. The subsequent cessation of widespread Maori intertribal slaughter, and the steady social progress of New Zealand from then to the present day vindicates this decision. Many Chiefs did not sign, and nor did the treaty cover the entire country. The fact that despite this, no tribe in any part of the country were subsequently denied any rights that the treaty conferred on the actual signatories demonstrates its overriding good intentions. However, the folly of entering into any form of treaty based upon democratic European concepts of justice and legality, thousands of years in the making, with tribal peoples is clear by its consequences to this very day. This comment is premised upon my well founded conviction that the few grievances of Maori which are valid, are grossly exaggerated. The present dire situation is simply evidence of the fact that the Maori radicals and their social engineering white patrons have won the propaganda war. This ongoing war of subversion was never anything but a one-sided contest in any case, because while the moral vacuum created by the undermining of "old fashioned" values was being filled by their exact opposite throughout the entire Western world, average good-hearted, (but complacent), New Zealanders were busy working, living their lives, believing that we were all New Zealanders together, and hardly giving a thought to racial problems and ancient grievances. All the while it seems, a proportion of Maoridom were thinking of little else. True democracy exists nowhere, but while it still remains an ideal, there is hope. The old saying that "the price of peace is eternal vigilance" has only become a clich'e because it is true.

Due to intermarriage, (to put it politely), education, and the enormous and all pervasive impact of the modern world the consciousness gap between the descendants of the old time Maori and the European, has closed enormously and rapidly. As a result of this, for some decades now the consciousness of the modern Maori has been closer to that of the European than to that of the pre colonial Maori. Even so, definite remnants of the old consciousness still persist, and it is this, combined with current materialistic attitudes and all pervasive anti "white" pro Maori indoctrination which is the main cause of difficulties.

Maori, in the pre colonial sense no longer exist. Assimilation, by the means of intermarriage and socialisation is an accomplished fact. It has already happened, and Maori themselves, were and still are, highly instrumental in this.

Similarly, that which is generally referred to as "Maori culture", is actually the culture of their past, and it too is essentially gone, has become a part of their history in the same way that the medieval culture of Europe is a part of European history. True culture is something that exists, and is lived, in the moment, and due to the continuing evolution of consciousness, is always in a state of dynamic metamorphosis. The everyday "culture" of the modern Maori, is overwhelmingly European in character. The oldtime culture has been relegated to ceremonial occasions, as is normal for bygone cultural traditions throughout the world.

No greater absurdity is possible than the situation wherein so many modern, so called "Maori", "decide" that they are Maori by the use of their predominantly European consciousness! Being Maori cannot be a "state of mind" if that mind is predominantly, or even partially, non Maori. One cannot have an opinion about ones race because race is determined by racial heredity, not by opinion. With the question - why? a person with a minority of Maori ancestry would wish to identify themselves as a Maori, (or, better said, would wish to disavow their European ancestry), we arrive at the irrational heart of the entire Maori/indigenous/racial folly. Racial prejudice is only part of the answer; it goes much deeper than this. This essay is not the place to venture into this psychological minefield - I leave it as an open question, but certainly, the equally irrational antipathy that many Euro New Zealanders have for all things British/European, including in many cases their very own forebears, is inextricably bound up with this same malign phenomenon. This irrational psychosis should be dragged out of the murky realms of subconscious emotion and be objectively scrutinised in the clear light of day for it lies at the very heart of all the problems that this essay attempts to address. A great contributing factor to the rise and success of Maori militancy and the "treaty industry" is the fact that significant numbers of European New Zealanders are happy to believe the worst about anything European or Western, and particularly about the English. The point here is that there is no race, or civilisation that is in a position to point the moral finger at any other. The much criticised shortcomings and mistakes of our unjustly maligned British/European forebears will count for very little when, in the fullness of time, they are measured against the appalling blunders perpetrated by their modern critics....

Continued at Part Three