Oct - December

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 27/12/19
I was disgusted to read that Fletchers are spending $60,000 per month for security on their property which is being illegally occupied. This is a spat between Maori tribes and would have been solved months ago if Jacinda Ardern had not interfered.

The protesters should have been removed ages ago. The protesters have widened the spat to build up their case, something to do with rocks and heritage.

They have involved the Maori King who supports them. Hardly surprising? A good political move.

The Treaty Settlements were signed off as full and final. Maori, like all sectors of society, always want more if there is an opportunity. Government representing we taxpayers should resist firmly.

Iwi quickly found that at the first hint of Treaty Settlements, membership increased significantly as people realised the importance of affiliation.

The few vociferous Maori who are regularly in the media should remember that the largesse which Iwi have rightfully received in recent years is an opportunity to build up their wealth.

Much of the land confiscated from their forebears may well have been sold decades ago with the likelihood that the proceeds may have been distributed or lost long ago also.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 20/12/19
Why is Council taking the childish demands and tantrums of someone who missed out being voted on to council so seriously?

Buddy Mikaere had the same chance as Andrew Hollis to be voted on to council. The fact that Andrew drew more than 7000 democratically-elected votes showed that people (including Maori) thought that Andrew Hollis was the right person for the job in council to represent them speaks for itself.

Buddy Mikaere should be asking himself why he wasn’t voted in as he had the same equal opportunity as everyone else.

As far as I know free speech is still allowed in New Zealand but demanding a person should be removed from council because a person said something that most New Zealanders heartily agree with is not to be used as an excuse to try and remove him from council.

Perhaps by trying to do this Buddy thinks he then would have a chance of being elected in his place?

I think this just shows why he wasn’t.
L ASKIN, Bethlehem.

Northland Age 19/12/19
On reading the article ‘Hapu versus iwi over land’ (Northern Advocate December 12), I was intrigued to learn that there were Maori land confiscations north of Auckland, in this case the Ruakaka area. I wonder if the author could specify the boundaries, the date this occurred, by whom, from whom and for what reason, of/for these alleged confiscations.

Henry Hanson Turton’s deed Number 96 records that on February 16, 1854, Ruakaka land was sold for £350 ($700). In fact 19th century transactions detailed in 44 deeds collated by Henry Hanson Turton, and held in government archives, as well as the Victoria University NZETC website, each bearing the names of land owners, record that much of the land from Cape Brett to Mahurangi (including Whangarei) was sold by the Maori land owners.

Like the words ‘sovereignty,’ ‘partnership’ and ‘taonga,’ are some now twisting the meaning of ‘confiscation’ to further racially divide our society?

Northland Age 17/12/19
A Northern Advocate letter to the Editor (25/11/19) stated that: 'His Royal Highness, in his speech, constantly referred to The Crown and Tangata Whenua as being "Treaty partners" – this was a gross perversion of the truth and all too typical of the many treaty-twisters in our midst. The Prince referred to a ‘partnership’ between two peoples (dubious enough in itself) but made no reference to ‘a Crown/Maori partnership’ in his speech at Waitangi.

The Prince also referred to Apirana Ngata 1940: “....treaty partners’ standing together...”. Yet in 1922 Ngata said - “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.

Recently in a Waateanews interview Dr Don Brash said “this talk about partnership is clearly garbage….there is nothing in the treaty about partnership, it is quite explicitly not a partnership between the Crown and Maori, it is a contract between the Crown and the people of New Zealand, all of them….’people as different as David Lange and Winston Peters have said it (partnership) is a nonsense an absurdity’ - but it has been perpetrated by people who seek advantage by pushing that particular view….” https://www.waateanews.com/uma/play_podcast/x_podlink/ODMxMzQ=/

The Treaty did not create a Crown/Maori partnership. Even in the big 1987 case, the Court of Appeal used the word partners interchangeably with the word parties, and spoke also of a relationship ‘AKIN to’ a partnership. In a later case even Cooke P made it quite plain that not even all real genuine partnerships ~ which this was not ~ are ones of equals. It is constitutionally impossible for a subject to be the partner of the Crown. The entire gist of the Treaty was the recognition of the Crown’s sovereignty.

In 1521 there were 3 Spanish Ships that called into Hao Atoll where it is recorded picked up 100 Islanders and brought them into Kaipara Harbour on the south head to a Waitaha village called AOTEA the name of one of the Spanish ships which picked them up was called TAI-NUI, 1860 maps make no mention of a people called Tainui in Waikato, they were called Ngati Mahuto or Waikato.

No waka called Tainui ever arrived in New Zealand, it was made from a New Zealand timber. Years ago the elders of the area decided to excavate their migration canoe-they took samples to the Waikato University and had them examined it, it was found to be carved out of Kauri it was promptly returned and reburied.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 13/15/19
David Clark, Health Minister, has appointed 13 new Health Board Chairs, four are Maori, why even mention that fact, if not using it as a political football for the coming election?

It matters not which ethnic group a person comes from if a person is suitable for the position.

Jacinda's ‘We are One’? Until Election time? We need a national health system for everyone be they red, black, pink or tartan.

The system now is a game for most political parties, give into those who make the most noise, that you wouldn’t put up from your children, give anything to gain power, that’s the name of this game.

Vote only for the party that believes ‘we are one’ and acts on it.

Some want the present situation to last forever.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 6/12/19
The Local Government Act requires local authorities to have processes to provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making process and to foster the development of Maori capacity to contribute.

I expect Maori to have input into council decision-making and I expect the council to consider those views but what I do not accept is for Maori to have an unqualified right of veto. To elevate the Maori world view above all other's world views is unacceptable.

The Treaty cannot imply a superior form of citizenship. Any argument for different treatment under Article 2 or 3, based purely on an ethnic basis, is fundamentally repugnant.

I also expect councillors to have differences of knowledge, opinions and experience, for it is that, that makes for robust decision-making. Requiring holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is not the way to well-considered outcomes.

We need to be a country where we celebrate our differences, where our diversity enriches us, where ethnicity matters but does not bestow privilege, where all citizens are united equality under the law. If we continue down the path of separatism and don't unite as New Zealanders, we will fail as a country.
R PRINCE, Tauranga.

During the 1980s I was very vocal regarding rugby trips to South Africa not having Maori members, so I am not ‘racist’.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 [45 years ago] was meant to address confiscated land. In that 45 years Ngapuhi have not made their claim because they are not able to agree who is to represent them. Yes, a whole 45 years later! From memory the Government claimed all treaty settlements would be final by 2014. Then there are to be ‘top-up’ settlements. Hello?

After the Race Relations Commissioner claimed Andrew Hollis should stand down, I wrote to Meng Foon [Race Relations Comissioner], outlining my thoughts on the subject, taking the intervening 45 years into account, asking him whether he considered my comments ‘racist’.

After several emails back and forth and my repeated asking that same question, he refused to do so. Andrew Hollis’ thoughts appear to be exactly the same as mine, for exactly the same reason – the vast majority of New Zealanders, after 45 years, are over the division this is causing in our country, want to put it behind us and get along together, without special rights for any person/race.
J HILL, Tauranga.

To S Reid of Omokoroa (The Weekend Sun, November 29, page 49) I want to explain what the Treaty of Waitangi means to me.

Having been elected to Local Govt in 1977 when I was the second woman ever to be elected to a district council Waimairi with a population of 74,500, what was always and still is today on Western Bay District Council, is Article 3 of the Treaty which was such a globally enlightened document in 1840 and made all people living in New Zealand equal with British subjects. Before the law that still stands.

Eventually we women got the vote and last term, I was the only woman on council and now we have four. One can get a very large vote from the voters and one can have enormous experience but if the Mayor chooses, he has the power to bury one which he has done to me—no chairmanships and being the most experienced and qualified, nothing counts if the leader chooses. So Mr Reid there are times when equality doesn’t mean a thing to some, but that is no reason to give up as there always so much to be done.
M MURRAY-BENGE, Bethlehem.

Kiwi Frontline 3/12/19

The facts get in the way of revisionist history (“City port an asset for us all”, 3/12/19). NZ’s Governor Hobson was certainly invited in 1840 to establish a presence in Auckland by Ngāti Whātua chief, Apihai Te Kawau. This strategic move ensured security of his tribe’s land conquests from further inter-tribal warfare. But most importantly, Te Kawau didn’t gift the land – it was sold to the Sovereign, the Queen of England (as per the attached agreement in Maori and English).

Ngāti Whātua has always been commercially oriented. As Auckland’s value rose, the tribe readily sold more to the growing population. Despite this, recent governments have made generous settlements helping the tribe to accumulate about $1.4 billion in high income-earning city assets.

Now all attention has moved to the Port of Auckland (POA) land. Interestingly, the plaque acknowledging the 1840 purchase has been replaced with one thanking Ngāti Whātua for ‘the gift’ of the land. This is not an innocent error and will support the tribe’s claim for the entire Waitemata and they will do well when ‘their gift’ is returned. Let’s hope we can still see the Harbour once the wharfs are covered in apartments.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 29/11/19
We get constant noise from some who expect special treatment, for everything then call New Zealanders racist when in fact, they deserve that label.

Election next year is the opportunity to tell them that no matter how much noise they make it will produce zero. Welfare from the cradle to the grave is at an end. Food banks are only for the needy.

Jacinda needs to investigate? How many waiting for food parcels have the need for charity, and or just jumping on the bandwagon instead of buying food?

Can the country cope with some who produce large families with no means of supporting them and need welfare?

Winston Has demonstrated that NZF never existed, only Winston First and as the Auckland vice chair for NZF when the party was launched, this has been a tremendous disappointment, to the many who gave of their time and money, one never knew what was going on between Peters and Woollerton at any given time.

What is clear is NZF MPs only comment allowed was ‘Yes Winston’. The public need to show Peters the door, let him know you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the time.

History will reveal his true colours.

An insult to the name of Winston Churchhill.

The media has recently been awash with claims by Maori of their rights; the Tupuna Maunganui Authority’s deforestation program and the interminable Ihumatao Otuataua Stonefields occupation being pertinent examples.

The media publicity seems to have accorded them some validity but they have only confirmed the avoidance or ignorance by those Maori of history.

The reluctance of government or local authorities to become involved in the issues is a woeful avoidance of their responsibilities to the public.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

Northland Age 28/11/19
The deed of purchase for Wanganui tells you that Maori sold the land to the Europeans. Maori never owned land. They only occupied it until other Maori invaded and took it off them.

Maori originally took the land off the earlier inhabitants, the Ngati Hotu (Celts), Patupaiarehe and Waitaha. They are the pre-Maori people whose ancestors are still living here today.

These people lived in peace with one another, sharing the place hundreds of years ago before the people called Maori arrived and took the land off them through war.
Governments over the years have allowed many of the descendants of the tangata Maori to twist the truth about the true history of New Zealand.

Governments, their historians, the universities and Te Papa (use) propaganda to allow today's part-Maori to be compensated with valuable assets they do not deserve or are entitled to.

The Waitaha people have a pa site about 2km past Sparrow Cliff, which is still there today.

They had been living in New Zealand for over 200 years before the arrival of Maori.

According to the paramount chief of the Waitaha people, Wanganui is a Waitaha name and is spelt with out the “h” in it. There were about 500-1000 Waitaha living in Wanganui, who occupied the area down to the sea. This land belongs to all of us.

European Ken Malr is quite happy to change the spelling of Wanganui to make it a Maori name because he doesn't like it. How would he like it if we changed the spelling of his name and call him Ren Pair? "

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing." — Edmund Burke.

Otago Daily Times 27/11/19
A NUMBER of Maori tribes have claimed that they did not cede sovereignty to the crown.

Yet New Zealand is a sovereign nation — we owe our origin to the British immigrants, who brought new skills to forge a new nation.

This would imply that those Maori are not New Zealand citizens. They are not part of the sovereign nation. They may be residents but not citizens. New immigrants have to pledge allegiance to the Crown.

All these parts of New Zealand they claim to be entitled to, have ownership of, or control, don’t exist anymore as they are not citizens of New Zealand.

Where does that leave us? As residents, what are they entitled to? Or not now entitled to?
KEVIN O’HARA, Corstorphine

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 22/11/19
The recent appointment of TCC Committee Chairs and Deputy Chairs illustrates the old adage “kissing goes by favour”.

All of the newbies were appointed a deputy chair (and with an increase in pay) except for Andrew Hollis who is in the naughty corner for having the temerity to upset the perpetually offended Tangata Whenua.

Side-lining Hollis' skills as an engineer and geologist to pander to iwi sensitivity will be a loss to the council's skill base.

As for the experienced councillors Robson and Grainger, Robson has been sidelined probably because he is too bright and Grainger for having found an equitable solution for 11 Mission St, which councillors have agreed to, so upsetting iwi as they will have to share the prize.

Tenby Powell opens up this wound to satisfy iwi at his peril.

Tenby Powell who advocated for an inclusive council has created one that is even more divided than before.
R PRINCE, Welcome Bay.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 15/11/19
We do not live in a multi-cultural society. We do not live in a bi-cultural society. New Zealand is a mono-cultural society.

Broadly speaking, culture is the way we live our daily lives.

We are New Zealanders and enjoy the same culture.

That makes us a democracy, where equal rights should be enjoyed by all.

There are some groups who place their ethnicity above their nationality and so have acquired special privileges with the assistance of the government and generally endorsed in the media by not promoting the relevant information to the greater population, the silent majority.

The Treaty of Waitangi was for all New Zealanders, Tangata Nu Tirani not just Maori, Tangata Whenua, and so any new principles apply equally to all New Zealanders and so exclusive privileges cannot exist.

Finally, the Treaty is not our founding document, the Queen’s Royal Charter/ Letters Patent, November 1840 that made us a self-governing colony is. (abridged).
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa

Otago Daily Times 8/11/19
RECENTLY, I was asked to do a phone survey. I obliged in answering questions about things like politics but I became very annoyed when an ethnic question was asked.

I replied: Tick ‘‘other’’ and put in ‘‘New Zealander’’.

The response from the questioner on the phone was that this was not acceptable, and suggested I was European.

I replied I was born in New Zealand, as were my parents, and I have never been to Europe, as my parents had never been to Europe.

I said I see my ethnicity to be a New Zealander.

I ask the question, of market research firms, why the question of ethnicity is even asked in surveys.

If you believe it’s important to ask about ethnicity, why do you not accept ‘‘New Zealander’’ as a response?

I believe, in not accepting this ethnicity, you are being insulting to many in our community who were born here, as were their parents.

I particularly see this as insulting to those New Zealanders who come from mixedethnic parentage, to be asked to choose one of their parents over their other parent.

I suspect that would create considerable hurt within the family relationship. [Abridged]

Northern Advocate 8/11/19
Re ‘TUIA 250 flotilla haka in Northland chance to re-write history, Kaumatua says’ (Advocate 2/11/19).
This event, as the number ‘250’ suggests, was initially about Captain Cook’s first arrival in New Zealand but Maori nationalists, their sycophantic academics and media have hijacked the event with the vilification of Cook and an anti-colonisation theme.

History should not be ‘re-written’ as the heading suggests, and if it is, this false history should not be taught in our education system.
The article states: “chance to bring Māori and Europeans together” - the fact is Te Tiriti did that in 1840 (we are now one people), it was a great race uniting document for it’s time. It is later self serving translations/interpretations that have racially divided our nation.
It also says: “Europeans had never honoured the Treaty of Waitangi” - The author is apparently unaware that Hone Heke dishonoured the TOW, followed by the Taranaki tribal feuds and later the Kingitanga movement who refused to sign allegiance to the Queen at the start of the Waikato sovereignty rebellions.
New Zealand did not become a monoculture on the signing of the Treaty but an evolving inclusive democratic multicultural nation.

The article harps on about ‘Dual Heritage’ and two peoples – wouldn’t it be better to move forward as New Zealanders? The two-peoples notion is a thing of the past since we have been together for 170 years and most people who identify as Maori also have settler ancestry.

Northern Advocate 6/11/19
GM Tinker comparing the quelling of Waikato tribes’ 1860s rebellions with Hitler’s invasion of Poland (Advocate, October 19) is about as dirty as it gets. His wild opinions in this regard should be treated by all with the contempt that they deserve.

About 400 anti-government Maori were killed in fighting in the Waikato from 1863 to 1864, up to 6 million Poles lost their lives in the Poland invasion. Is that a fair comparison?

Waikato did not merely “dare to disagree”, nor was it “on the strength of rumours that the kingitanga movement was actually planning to overrun Auckland” – but of compelling evidence of such plans. Such attacks did indeed happen: a Ngaiterangi raiding party (from Tauranga) was intercepted and driven back in 1863 in the Hunua Ranges when they were moving to attack Auckland near Clevedon. The Victoria University site states that their aim was to “sweep the Pakeha to the sea” and “the proposal was to execute a grand coup by attacking Auckland by night-time or early in the morning”.

In March 1863, Kingites obstructed the building of a police station near Meremere. Also around that time armed warriors raided resident magistrate John Gorst’s property at Te Awamutu and seized his printing press, thus forcing Governor Grey to recall Gorst to the safety of Auckland.

In short, the Kingites were in active rebellion with Ngapuhi and Arawa supporting Governor Grey in saying they would fight for him to beat the Waikato rebels.

Moreover, since the whole of New Zealand was British sovereign territory, to speak of government moves to reclaim any held by rebels as an “invasion” is further abuse of words.

Otago Daily Times 4/11/19
I READ that the Prime Minister received a ‘‘fierce’’ welcome at the commemorations of the New Zealand Wars in Waitara at Labour Weekend (ODT, 29.10.19).

The Prime Minister urged that New Zealand history be put into the school curriculum, including the facts around the New Zealand Wars.

While scholar James Cowan put the total dead during these wars at just under 3000, it is a lesser known fact that during the socalled New Zealand Musket Wars between 1818 and 1840, the total estimated number of dead in these intertribal wars varied from 20,000 to double that number.

During these wars, which ranged over the entire country, including the Chatham Islands, cannibalism, slavery and torture were common.

If those designing the proposed review of the New Zealand school curriculum wish to learn of this period of New Zealand history, I can recommend a number of learned books including The Musket Wars by R. Crosby and Maori Wars of the Nineteenth Century by S. P. Smith.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 1/11/19
Certainly Councillor Hollis was over-descriptive of some of the concerns New Zealanders may have in terms of wanting a country for all and not under governance of the Treaty of Waitangi. This does not alter the fact that the Race Relations Commissioner, having dispensed with Captain Cook in his own hometown, has interfered in the local politics of another city insisting that his views on colonisation and Maori dominion be those expressed in Tauranga Council.
What part of democracy does he and now it would seem the new Mayor not understand? - The latter reversing his support for a candidate legally ‘elected by constituents’ who patently wanted him.

Unlike Cr Baldock who said the danger of giving people a say is that they would mess it up and vote for the majority, Andrew Hollis will try to represent all his constituents.

Not a murmer accompanied Rangimarie Kingi’s mayoral blurb predicting - a collapse of white supremacy, arrogant media, courts and banks, a Maori Government to lead our independence; the end of Buckinghamshire...'. The gravy train is not a new concept but it is gaining momentum. New Zealand is in a sad and perilous place. If anyone should resign it should be the Commissioner and the Mayor both of whom don’t plan on representing all people.
R STEPHENS, Papamoa Beach.

Is the race relations commissioner biased?

The race relations commissioner Meng Foon has set a dangerous precedent here using his office as a stage for himself and Maori – is it his mandate or job to get involved in the local council?

Andrew Hollis came out and spoke about the Treaty of Waitangi and how he thinks it's past its used-by date.

Andrew Hollis campaigned on this with people voting because of his sentiments and seeing him as speaking on council for them.

It is obvious Foon is abusing his office! There seems to be a lot of that going on in local and national Gov’t, the health and especially the education sector.

It depends on what side of the fence you are standing on. The culturally hypnotised or the grievance industry see not having unelected Maori on council as racist, while the majority of the general population see ’having’ unelected Maori on council as racist. Is this man an unbiased commissioner for ’all’ Kiwis?

The question we should be asking is how a man so blatantly biased toward anything Maori got into this office. What process did he go through to get ‘picked’, or, was it a call from the Waitangi Tribunal that assured another minion for Maori?
R ANDERSON, Lower Hutt.

New Mayor Tenby Powell's plan to achieve a more harmonious and less divided city were quickly derailed at the council's swearing-in ceremony by an activist tearing down the Treaty of Waitangi wall hangings for reasons he found difficult to explain, and during Andrew Hollis's swearing-in, some Maori walking out, and Buddy Mikaere standing and pointing to the door.

These kind of antics and discourtesy don't bode well for Mayor Powell's hopes for the future.

Andrew Hollis received over 7500 votes. Does Mikaere need reminding that is more than six times that which he received? Hollis rightly pointed out that freedom of speech is a right, being offended is a choice. As for Puhirake Ikaka’s claim that Hollis's views are predetermined, can he not see the irony that views are equally predetermined.

I believe that Hollis will bring a focus to Iwi-Council relations that they are not just about iwi's aspirations but must also need a buy-in from ratepayers and the wider community, including an acceptance that their views must also be part of the dialogue.

Tenby Powell's desire to build a bridge is commendable, but it has to be a place where people meet, not an expectation of one-way traffic.

Northern Advocate 1/11/19
Yet again, G M Tinker (Advocate, 19/10/19) trots out the current false orthodoxy about the meaning of words in the Treaty of Waitangi. It would be extremely serious if these were incorporated in any school curriculum since it would give our children an utterly false idea of seminal events on our history.

“Sovereignty” was translated by the Williams to “kawanatanga” on the night of 4/5th February 1840, no word in classic Maori having a precise word/ for it. That “kawanatanga’ is derived from a maorification of “governor” with suffix meaning “-ship” is of academic interest only since translation is not, repeat not the same as derivation.

Moreover, another critical point, those chiefs who spoke on the day made it totally clear that they knew that by signing they would become subordinate to the governor and hence to the Queen.

Another important point: both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February in English and the Maori translation were read out at the meeting. Many present of both races knew both languages and nobody said they meant different things. This was all recorded by Colenso at the time and checked by Busby. “Kawanatanga” meant “sovereignty” in 1840. Any other supposed meaning is a fake. All this, the chiefs confirmed at Kohimarama in 1860.

The story is much the same with “rangatiratanga”, the Williams’ translation of “possession”. While treaty-twisters will keep claiming until they are blue in the face that it meant something more, they conceal by omission that it was assured to ALL the people of New Zealand, thereby faking the meaning of article two.

Otago Daily Times 31/10/19
THE facts of New Zealand history are controversial; on one hand, there are documented records, and on the other, oral folklore.

The Government has dictated that teaching of New Zealand history in our schools is to become compulsory. Before that is imposed, it is essential a balanced and universally trusted Truth Commission be established to test the accuracy of disputed aspects of New Zealand history.

Without such a body to remove controversy, and recognising the present onesided, unbalanced and compulsory indoctrination of students in occupational tertiary courses, sometimes offensively presented, the process will be no different in our schools.

Further, without such testing, the process will be the same as China’s forced reeducation and indoctrination of its Muslim Uighur population; except, hopefully, New Zealand children and their families will not be detained in state internment facilities.

Northland Age 31/10/19
The problem with Parihaka, people only write selected information like a Wanganui news paper on Parihaka about the holocaust that happened there around 1831 while one third were slaughter and one third taken as slaves by the Waikato the remainder fled south where 900 travelled to the Chatham Islands and slaughtered the Moriori to near extinction for seven years. The Moriori were laid out along the beach over a quarter of a mile touching one another.

Parents and children; some of the women with stakes thrust into them were left to die in there misery. See “Moriori by Michael King Pg 64). Of the 1700 at the time of the invasion only 101 survived the years of slavery and cannibalism that followed (see 1862 New Zealand Gazette pp 29-32). The true holocaust by Taranaki!

With the arrival of settlers at New Plymouth in 1841 those Maori who fled Taranaki during intertribal wars returned to reclaim the land which under Maori custom, they had forfeited when conquered by the Waikato tribes.

In some cases the British paid for the same piece of land up to four times to satisfy conflicting Maori claims. Numerous settlers families were murdered and their houses and barns burned to the ground. In twelve months period 1860-61, 177 settlers farms were destroyed the mass slaughter and burning of the settlers livestock. The second “holocaust” at Taranaki!

In 1867 Te Whiti squatted on Crown land at Parihaka that had been confiscated as punishment for the rebellion. Te Whiti proved to be not only evasive but down right obstructive sending out parties of his people to plough up lands of the European setters. He also stole horses from settlers farms and pulled down stockyards. In this republic of peace, a thousand Maoris were huddled together in most unhygienic conditions. In Parlhaka there were two hundred cases of measles and twelve deaths (Auckland Star 22nd September 1875) Among things discovered in this Republic of peace was a stockpile of around 250 weapons, including breechloaders, Enfields, revolvers and a variety of ammunition. Nobody was injured during the alleged “holocaust at Parihaka except a boy whose foot was stepped on by a horse. There is a lot more truth that could be told about Parihaka but space would prohibit it been told.

Dominion Post 28/10/19
I see a resemblance between what happened in Parihaka and what happened in the Chatham Islands. According to history, in both cases a superior force conquered some local people.

In Parihaka it was colonials against Maori and in the Chathams it was Maori against Moriori.

The Moriori people, indigenous to the Chatham Islands, arrived around 1500 and developed a peacefUl way of life. In fact they had no weapons to defend themselves.

In 1835 members of the Ngati Mutunga and Nati Tama Maori iwi from the North Island of New Zealand invaded the islands and nearly exterminated the Morton, raping the women, cannibalising and enslaving the survivors.

In the Parihaka settlement the Crown has apologised and paid compensation. In the Chatham Island settlement the Crown has again apologised and paid compensation, which I cannot understand.

Surely the two iwi who invaded the islands should be made to apologise and pay compensation to make the whole settlement process, fair, transparent and unbiased.
BILL HAY, Hamilton

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 25/10/19
I’m pleased to see our new mayor is not going to be swayed by racial hysteria with a knee jerk reaction and have Andrew Hollis stand down. These are the sort of people we need in Council: strong and not afraid to voice an opinion on things that concern our fair city. It would be unfair and unjust to have Mr Hollis removed from Council for a few remarks that do not attack any one person, but it seems to me he was criticising a system, rather than any one race. Let him stay and see how he performs, before condemning him.

It is time people got off the grass and looked forward to a non-racial future, something that can’t happen with the present mindset.
R SMITH, Tauranga.

In my opinion the bro-hou over comments made by an elected councillor are the result of the denial of 'free speech' that is the wet blanket now thrown over society by the Race Relations Commissioner.

It is not a crime for those who seriously research New Zealand history to hold differing views and to verbalize what they know. Mr Mikaere and other activists are constantly labelling any difference of historical opinion as 'racism'.

I do not believe the Mayor elect is correct when he claims local government has a 'legal duty to have a partnership with Iwi'.

LGA 14 (1) (d) Principles Relating to Local Authorities does not speak of 'partnership'.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the activities of Maori gangs and the millions of dollars of drug money being secured by them is any more than the natural outcome of Captain Cook’s bloody rampaging around the Pacific and the subsequent dastardly oppression of colonisation.
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

Northern Advocate 23/10/19
The Vienna Convention 1969 defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation” (article 2(1)(a)). See https://www.treatylaw.org/what-is-a-treaty/

Jeremy Ashford (letters 18/10/19) goes off track with his assertion that “A treaty is by definition a partnership”. No mention of partnership in the Vienna convention definition.

Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under the political control of the Queen. This also undermines claims that the treaty was a partnership because a subject of the Queen cannot be in partnership with the Queen.

The fact that Maori were not a state in 1840 has been an issue since before the treaty was signed and at one stage prompted NZ chief justice James Prendergast to declare in 1877 that cession of sovereignty was a nullity.

Ashford’s assertion that there can be “as many interpretations of the Treaty as there were Maori who signed it” and “no European (English) interpretation is valid in international law” is self-serving nonsense.

Under international law in 1840, a nation could assume sovereignty over a territory by discover, proclamation, cession by treaty, occupation, and by conquest. Like it or not, Britain did all of those while adding NZ to the British Empire.

NZ Herald 23/10/19
Andrew Judd's colonial ancestors might have "murdered and plundered" (NZ Herald, October 21). Mine did not.

Dominion Post 23/10/19
I must protest against the continuing rants against a great sailor, namely Captain James Cook (Monuments, memories, men of action, Oct 21).

I would ask that your reporter Phillip Mathews first goes back to history 101: never judge yesterday's events by today's values; and secondly think, would there be an All Blacks team doing a haka at the Rugby World Cup if it had not been for Captain James Cook?

Finally, respect our culture, Mr Mathews - your rant was published on Trafalgar Day! So let's raise a glass (of rum) to our naval heroes, including Captain James Cook.
DON BUDGE, Turangl

Northland Age 22/10/19
A currently (undated) report by Stuff informs us that Waikato University, actively supported by Prime Minister Ardern and, surprise, surprise, the so-called Maori ‘king,’ plans to use $90 million of taxpayers’ money to build a replica Maori pa¯ .

And Vice-Chancellor Quigley crows that it “would really be a symbol of the aspirations of this university.” Well, why wouldn’t he?

But, hey, wait a minute! Even today, $90m is quite a lot of money, which would build quite a lot of houses — by my rough calculation, about 300 of them to provide good homes for, say, 1500 homeless people, many of them Maori. Moreover, as the tenants of those homes would pay fair rents, a constant supply of funds would become available for yet more homes to be built for the homeless.

Which is to be preferred — that or meeting Professor Quigley’s “aspiration’s”.

Northern Advocate 22/10/19
Maire Kaire (October 11) writes: "There being NO full-blooded race now in NZ" and yet says "a better understanding and relationship between Tauiwi and Maori?" — I believe the time has come to drop the labels and become New Zealanders.

She goes on to say both sides of the story have to be "told, taught and acknowledged". History is about truth and verifiable facts, not sides telling stories. Physical evidence and written records must take precedence over generational oral accounts (Chinese whispers). The compulsory history curriculum must be factual and complete as is possible.

I suspect Kaire is a supporter of the Maori nationalist movement and these people are the drivers behind the push for compulsory NZ history in schools and so-called decolonisation.

This process has already started. The New Zealand Centre for Political Research writes in a must-read article — "Through the unprecedented denigration of Captain Cook and other historical leaders as 'white supremacists', and the malicious vilification of the colonisation process, the scene is now being set for the next phase of this power grab: the indoctrination of children through fake history". And — "What . . . Maori supremacists are seeking is a radical transformation of New Zealand's constitutional framework to replace our present system of governance .. . with one that transfers authority and control to Maori".

'Decolonisation' may mean different things to different people, but it is my understanding that New Zealand (part-Maori and non-Maori) became fully and legally independent (decolonised) in 1986.

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 18/10/19
I agree with B. Johnson’s letter (The Weekend Sun, October 11). Our current Govt is introducing compulsory NZ History to be taught in schools by 2022. Yet another ploy in which to retain/gain Maori votes.

Maori activists are hell-bent on painting Captain Cook’s discovery, and the subsequent settling of Pakeha in NZ, as the worst thing that ever happened.

They need to read the history books and face up to the true accounts of what was happening in NZ up until around 1860.

Maori had been continually at war with each other for centuries. No law and order, no government, no health care, strongest tribes take all, complete anarchy.

Wholesale murder, enslavement and cannibalism was rampant throughout NZ, including the Chatham Islands, (where Moriori were 99 per cent wiped out).

Maori lived in continual fear, not peace.

So will the ‘real and truthful’ version of early NZ History be compulsorily taught in schools from 2022 or will our youngsters be indoctrinated with a fabricated and fake version?

Who says you can’t rewrite history. Some Maori seem to think they can.

Northland Age 17/10/19
What Wally Hicks has done (letters 10/10/19), is something leftist treatyists do all the time when devoid of valid argument in the face of presented facts: - fly moral equivalence arguments. This bogus tactic is engaged in to suggest that two unrelated wrongs make a "right," or at least cancel one another out - ie Rua Kenana’s ideologies is rather laughable in relation to religious and political history, Why is Kenana’s polygamy any worse than other founders of religious sects or communities, tribal war, do they mean the type fought within and between nation states and religions throughout Western Christendom's history?

Wally says my figures of 50 plus who perished at Maungapohatu are unsubstantiated, yet historian Judith Binney- section 362 http://tinyurl.com/yxwmos8j states - ˜The death registers reveal the harshness of life at Maungapohatu: the tragically high number of child deaths due to influenza, gastro-enteritis, typhoid, and whooping cough. In the years 1924-1936, 57 people died, in a community of about 30 families.

The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed tohunga who played on superstition and claims of cure for all kinds of illness. There were few prosecutions under the Act, and few convictions. It was repealed in 1962. The dangers of these Tohungas is shown by a case in 2009 when five people were convicted of the manslaughter of their family member, Janet Moses, after drowning her in a ritual after advice from a Tohunga that she was suffering under a makutu, or Maori curse. Only wack jobs would condemn the TSA 1907.

Were the ˜tribal (musket) wars” encouraged by European contact as Hicks asserts? If that was the case then why did the Brits go to the trouble of drafting the TOW which outlawed tribal warfare, convert many Maori to Christianity and preserve their language (written).

Did the ˜tribal men” (Hicks’s label) who wrote the United States constitution write into it racial separatism? I think not, and there is my answer as to why Wally’s Maori nationalist group with a Maori sovereignty agenda should not have any input into a written constitution for New Zealand.

Pakeha guilt? If there is any guilt in NZ today it is carried by some in Maoridom, they use and value all the introduced inventions, systems etc and know that Maori as a race have contributed very little. Everything above the ground except for trees was built by the ˜wicked white coloniser’.

Coloniser privilege? In 1831 some chiefs begged the Brits for protection mainly from the French (Yates letter to King William IV) and British system of governance to prevent tribal warfare. They got this in the 1840 TOW, the chiefs then sold most of New Zealand on willing buyer/seller basis. Then through unimaginable sheer hard work the ˜wicked white colonisers have achieved the ˜coloniser privilege” that Mikaere and her cronies benefit from today in a modern democratic society.

There is nothing in Article 2 of the treaty that even implies maori self-determination as Hicks asserts, Article 2 speaks only about property rights for ALL New Zealanders and the requirement for Maori landowners to negotiate only with the Queen should they wish to sell this to protect unenlightened Maori sellers from unscrupulous land buyers.

Lastly, I requested evidence to ˜Pakeha myth making and Hicks to date fails to specifically point to any? Need I say more.

Dominion Post 16/10/19
In the decades before the Treaty of Waitangi, Cook detractors Arama Rata and Tina Ngata's female ancestors existed in a climate of insecurity where rape, abduction, slavery and murder following battles were common.

Because of Cook's voyages to New Zealand and the subsequent development of the country, Rata and Ngata, and other Maori, have access to the cash economy, modern housing, hospitals, schools, universities, retail outlets, transport and technology.

Referring to the Endeavour as a "death ship" (Dominion Post, October 14) is not backed up with evidence. Unfortunately, misunderstandings over ownership and theft in what Cook called Poverty Bay led to the deaths of some Maori, but in other places where he landed good relations were established.

The British high commissioner has issued an expression of regret for the deaths at Tfiranganui-a-Kiwa, so why not something similar from the descendants of the Maori who murdered and ate 10 men serving under Tobias Furneaux in 1773? On the television programme Coast they were unapologetic, and described what happened to Furneaux's men as "cultural process".

Cook's arrival in New Zealand is unquestionably one of the most important events in our history. His charting of our shores, and the reports and illustrations from his three voyages set in train the modem development of the nation. He is a hero who should be celebrated with pride.
ROGER CHILDS, Raumatl Beach

Northern Advocate 16/10/19
Real history is not an “interpretation of recorded events” (Wally Hicks October 14) but a reconstruction of what actually happened, as far as is possible, based on physical evidence including written records from the time and appropriate use of eye-witness accounts.

Hicks’ talk of “traditional Pakeha/Crown-sanctioned ... Aotearoa New Zealand history” discloses the bias of his opinions. As just one thing, “Aotearoa” is not, repeat not, the historical name of our country and very few people of Maori descent ever used it before it became a recent fashion.

As their words recorded at the time make absolutely clear, the chiefs knew that by signing the treaty document they would become subordinate to the Queen, that is, cede sovereignty. At the same time ownership (tino rangatiratanga) of property (not “treasures”) was guaranteed to ALL the people of New Zealand. It is a favourite trick of today’s treaty-twisters to ignore the 1840 meanings of words which are the only valid ones which apply.

Claiming that a Crown/Maori ‘partnership’ is in any way stated or implied in the treaty is just another piece of fake history peddled by agenda driven treaty-twisters. As retired Judge Anthony Willy writes: ‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects’. And Canterbury law lecturer David Round writes: ‘The Queen’s subjects cannot be her partners’.

Otago Daily times 16/10/19
WHAT do New Zealand Maori want? You can read any news platform and there are many groups complaining on a large range of topics.

One of the latest is the protest during the celebrations marking 250 years since the arrival of Captain Cook.

Yes, it is a celebration. This great explorer is responsible for the outstanding country we have today, and while there were obviously wrongs done along the way, this was the world back then.

What would New Zealand look like if the French or the Dutch had settled here? We would have a very different Aotearoa and one that may not be as diverse and accommodating as the one we have today.

Would Maori take an old saying and put it into practice — let bygones be bygones. Goodness knows, 250 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

Nelson Mail 14/10/19
The basis for the kerfuffle about whether to celebrate Captain Cook's arrival, prompting pages of earnest historical opinions in The Nelson Mail (October 7), is the silly attempt by some to blame us later generations for what happened hundreds of years ago.

It is deeply felt by some that the Crown should apologise for the historical event of colonisation. I am all for the redress individual iwi are now being paid for proven wrongs committed by the Crown later in the 19th century.

But if you look soberly at the events surrounding the colonisation of New Zealand, it is surprising how little bloodshed actually occurred compared with other countries. That is undoubtedly because of the Treaty of Waitangi, of which we can be justly proud.

But I refuse to feel at all responsible or guilty for past historical facts.

We can (and should) muse on the moral character and behaviour of great people like Captain Cook - but it is all just history.

And it is quite idiotic that now, eight generations later, some Maori and Polynesians get it into their heads to feel aggrieved by the fact of colonisation.

By and large, I agree with the balanced views shown in your leading article and by Anne Salmond.

Northern Advocate 12/10/19
Bigoted? Hitler? One eyed views? are terms/labels resorted to, as GM Tinker has done (1/10/19), when obviously rattled by facts.

I agree, New Zealand history curriculum should be as accurate and unbiased as possible, history lessons should not be about ‘what ifs’, ‘could of happened’ or the speculation rife today about what went on in the minds signatories to the treaty.
It is this ‘modern consciousness’, i.e. woolley thinking that has seen $billions transferred to tribes in questionable treaty settlements. And around 20 race-based special rights and privileges which only those of Maori descent can enjoy – apartheid. Further our entire coastline is now under tribal claims, tribes are seeking control of our freshwater resources and treatyists are advocating for undemocratic race-based appointments to local governments.

By the Treaty of Waitangi the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty to the Queen completely and for ever. By subsequent formal procedures they became her subjects. Likewise, all the people of New Zealand obtained exactly the same rights, irrespective of racial origin. Today we are all citizens of New Zealand but as we remain a monarchy we are also nominally the Queen’s subjects. Modern claims of any “partnership” between the Queen (aka “the Crown”) and any Maoris are quite frankly unfounded garbage

Since all of New Zealand became British sovereign territory in 1840, moves to reclaim any of it from rebels were totally legitimate and it is likewise false to refer to them as “invasions”. Tinker’s claim that the troops moving to suppress the Waikato rebellion were “foreign invaders” is more garbage.

There is much song and dance today amongst Maori activists about “land loss” and “land stolen”. The truth is that most of New Zealand land was eagerly sold by Maori chiefs. Today less than 4% remains confiscated from rebel tribes, as they had been forewarned – a practice fully in accord with traditional Maori practice or “tikanga”. 5.6% remains under “native title” and of course considerable amounts of freehold land are held by owners with some Maori ancestry. Tinker’s allusion to Hitler’s march into Poland for comparison is about as low as it gets.

Waikato Times 12/10/19
The Waikato Times recently reported a speech given by Dr Arama Rata from Waikato University to a forum discussing the future of Hamilton.

Her comments were very inflammatory, unfortunate and certainly made a dent in the future of race relations.

Firstly, Captain James Cook was a very humble person who trained to be a seaman in the small port of Whitby, England.

Secondly, with his three voyages to the South Pacific, he became recognised as one of the greatest explorers of all time.

For Rata to accuse Cook of having the aim of eliminating Maori, who had also migrated to New Zealand, is plain disgusting and obviously untrue.

Reading Rata's inflammatory statements, one could reasonably wonder, where Maori would be today in the unlikely event of Europeans and Asians not migrating to New Zealand.

Life has never been perfect, but through ongoing intermarriage, education, Treaty settlement, including the first written Maori language, Dr Rata is now able to pontificate from her ivory tower.

Recently there has been a push to rewrite New Zealand History.

No doubt Dr Rata would be keen to play a leading role, if this project proceeds, which would obviously be very unfortunate.

In my view. the thoroughly researched Penguin History of New Zealand book by Michael King, should be the basis for any discussion as an example of rewriting our history.

I am old enough to have witnessed some of the incredible achievements of Princess Te Puea, as a revered leader of Tainui, which she made happen over a period of 40 years.

It is little wonder she was regarded as probably the most influential woman in our political history. Sadly, because of her Treaty Settlement and her conciliatory comments regarding settling Tainui's grievances "moving forward as one people", soon after World War II she has been quietly relegated to obscurity.

Regarding the comments Rata made about immigrants from Asian countries, I believe that the majority of Kiwis welcome their presence as they give greater depth and colour to our culture plus they have a very good work ethic.
ROD WISE, Hamilton

Tom O'Connor, (Waikato Times, October 5) rightly takes to task Dr Arama Rata, Waikato University senior research fellow, for her hysterical outburst over the recent arrival of the replica of Captain Cook's ship. Endeavour, to New Zealand shores. Calling it a "death ship" probably skirts the edges of hate speech. The far right has its equivalent here in the far left.

If this is what passes for scholarship in our institutions of higher learning today, then it represents a serious degeneration in academic standards. Keep this person and their warped political polemic well away from the yet to be revised school history syllabus.

If anyone wants a balanced view of reality regarding early contact between Maori and Cook, go no further than Graeme Lay's excellent, fact-based analysis presented in the recent New Zealand Listener, (October 12).

I am waiting for the day when the murderers of James Cook and those Maori who murdered, dismembered and ate 10 of his crew are going to offer an apology to the sailors' descendants. Same goes for the genocide and enslavement handed out to the peace loving Moriori by Taranaki Maori in 1835 at the Chathams. What are the chances?

The various iwi around Gisborne have not been happy about Cook and his ship's first landfall in New Zealand given that nine of their own were killed in the encounter. But we keep hearing that Cook himself killed these men, not some of his crew. It is not drawing much of a bow to suggest that it was primarily a clash of cultures. This would have been the first time these Englishmen had ever been challenged by the locals and they reacted as you might expect, by defending themselves in the only way they knew how. Cook, himself, is on record as being unhappy with the outcome, yet we still defile his name as if he was the only one with a gun.

On the other hand should we not consider that for nearly two decades we, and quite possibly some members of the Gisborne iwi, have been officially killing the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq when they challenge us. Are we any better than Cook's men?

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 11/10/19
What a shocking indictment of international relations it is when a foreign government feels obligated, for political appeasement, to express national guilt for a minor incident that occurred 250 years ago to the part-descendants of a tribal culture that was known for ritual killings, infanticide, slavery, the slaughter of whole tribes defeated in battle and cannibalism.

Nine killed or wounded. Internecine battles between tribes often saw hundreds killed and eaten or enslaved.

This state of affairs becomes more bizarre when those claiming offence are in all cases part-descendants of the colonists, those people that they vilify.

If Cook’s reportage had not encouraged the advent of European settlers the warring tribes would have eventually exterminated each other.

When is sanity going to return to our community and avaricious racial separatists going to cease their illogical demands?
B JOHNSON, Omokoroa.

Otago Daily Times 10/10/19
IT is time the haka was banned, if not entirely, then as a free-fo-rall.

This letter is prompted by what must be the ugliest, most aggressive haka, namely that which preceded the Rugby World Cup match between the All Blacks and Springboks.

New Zealand has an appalling history of violence by men towards women. The haka is about challenge and aggression: angry faces, hostile stances and threatening movements.

Given the high regard in which the All Blacks are held, this aggression then gains status and emulation. It is alarming to note that haka is now being taught at preschool level and indulged in at any opportunity.

Unfortunately, teams opposing the All Blacks are unable to respond to the ‘‘challenge’’ in any way. Imagine if the opposing team wandered off laughing and smiling midhaka. Just think how disempowering that would be for our ‘‘warriors’’.

The haka is an appropriation of Maori culture. It needs to be returned to Maori and reassessed as to its role in the 21st century.
JULIET CLARK Central Otago

New Zealand Herald 10/10/19
True science hears all propositions and allows them to be openly contested. “Truth” evolves as more information is analysed in the light of day. So it’s concerning to have a university academic ( Herald, October 8) suggest free speech must be contained within universities.

History shows that when the ruling elite, the media or those with guns decide what ideology is and isn’t acceptable for students to hear or is to be allowed in public discussion, that society will fail.

I hope free speech is allowed back in New Zealand before that happens here.

Taranaki Daily News 10/10/19
I believe the Te Runanga o Ngati Tama iwi, by leaving this Mt Messenger bypass project in limbo, is doing nothing to improve relations here in New Zealand.

Someone needs to say deal with this situation by this date or drop the project.
IAN MCALPINE, New Plymouth

Otago Daily Times 9/10/19
Regarding Donna Matehaere’s letter to the editor (28.9.19).

The notion of reserved seats for iwi runanga in local government is really an expedience for courting Te Runanga of Ngai Tahu money through formal local runanga conduits.

I say this as a Maori landowner who despairs of any notion that aims to create both reserved council seats for corporate entities and encourages privileged ethnic division.
IRIAN SCOTT Port Chalmers

Dominion Post 9/10/19
Congratulations on a very balanced editorial on Monday, dealing with James Cook's arrival in New Zealand. It was the most balanced account of this event I have yet seen in the New Zealand media.

But the letter from Tony Orman on the same day, noting that TVNZ had described Cook's arrival in 1769 as the "first encounter between Maori and Europeans", illustrates the challenge we face in getting our history taught with accuracy.

The Dutchman Abel Tasman had encountered Maori more than a century before Cook's arrival.

This error may be regarded as a bit trivial. Much more serious would be creating the impression that the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s were the major source of violent bloodshed in the 19th century, whereas in fact the roughly 3000 people who lost their lives in those battles were outnumbered at least tenfold by those killed in the inter-tribal battles which occurred before 1840.

I welcome the commitment to teach all schoolchildren something of our nation's history. Let's try to ensure that that history is as accurate as possible.

The person who wrote the Stuff editorial on Monday could be a useful person to help with the drafting!
DON BRASH, Auckland

Northland Age 8/10/19
I see the British High Commissioner has expressed regret for the loss of Maori life when Cook's ship arrived at Gisborne. Meng Foon former Gisborne Mayor and newly minted Race Relations Commissioner considers that a full apology is required (probably groveling) is required. As Cook's crew were attacked and defending themselves then “regret” is more than adequate.

Can I expect, in the interests of reconciliation, Maori will now be apologizing for the killing and eating 10 members of the Adventure, sister ship of Cook's Ship Resolution, at Wharehunga Bay, Queen Charlotte Sound 17 December 1773, or is this too much to hope for.

I am not expecting this to be published as media these days seems to consider that anything, true or not, that could be construed as offensive to Maori is not suitable for publication.

What a shocking indictment of International relations it is when a foreign government feels obligated, for political appeasement, to express national guilt for a minor incident that occurred two hundred and fifty years ago to the part-descendants of a tribal culture that was known for ritual killings, infanticide, slavery, the slaughter of whole tribes defeated in battle and cannibalism. Nine killed or wounded. Internecine battles between tribes often saw hundreds killed and eaten or enslaved.

This state of affairs becomes more bizarre when those claiming offence are in all cases part-descendants of the colonists, those people that they vilify.

If Cook’s reportage had not encouraged the advent of European settlers the warring tribes would have eventually exterminated each other.

When is sanity going to return to our community and avaricious racial separatists going to cease their illogical demands?

The Press 8/10/19
‘‘Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them’’ (George Santayana).

The Press editorial of October 7 is entirely accurate when it says that there is no point in demonising Captain Cook or in dismissing the people who inhabited these islands at the time as ignorant savages.

Neither of these attitudes is helpful or accurate.

Nor is attempting to fit present day ideas and values on to the then prevailing cultures.

We need to make ourselves familiar with the past but we must also look forward and stop bleating about who did what to whom, and what can be done to remedy it.

We are now one nation and we should be trying to improve the lot of any who are struggling, regardless of ethnic history.

Some of my ancestors left Ireland for a better life in England, while others were driven from Scotland by economic necessity.

These are matters of historical interest to me but I have no burning desire to right these wrongs; rather a determination to ensure that my children do even better than they might otherwise.

The future awaits us, and we would do well to embrace it.
VIC SMITH, Halswell

Dominion Post 8/10/19
The introduction to your article on Manutimori (Oct 5) refers to Captain Cook's arrival "in the land we now call Aotearoa New Zealand".

Oh really! Who decided that was the name of our country and when was that decision taken? I don't recall having a say or a vote on that.

I am not necessarily opposed to a change of name, but I am very opposed to any imposition of the new name by stealth.

If we can have lengthy public debates, complex parliamentary processes and public referendums on matters such as the legalisation of euthanasia and cannabis, surely the name of our country deserves equal treatment. So why isn't it getting it?

Otago Daily Times 7/10/19
PHILIP Temple (Letters, 27.9.19) has expressed disappointment that there appear to be no Ngai Tahu candidates in the forthcoming local body elections.

He needs, however, to understand that, in the new era of cogovernance, iwi do not need to suffer the inconvenience, cost and uncertainty of the electoral process in order to exercise authority over us. That is, apparently, their right as a Treaty entitlement.

Late last year, Environment Canterbury sponsored a local Bill aimed at granting Ngai Tahu the right to appoint two unelected members to Ecan.

More recently, the Otago Regional Council has allowed Ngai Tahu to nominate two unelected members to its most important standing committee.

While the process of granting unelected authority to iwi has gone furthest in Auckland, here in the South, even a decision on new street names in Wanaka requires ‘‘approval by iwi’’ (ODT, 27.9.19).

In this new age of cogovernance, democracy and elections are for everyone else; iwi enjoy increasing power and authority over us as of right.
JOHN BELL, Forbury

I AM sick and tired of the hypocrisy surrounding one of the greatest hydrographic surveyors in history.

It must be appreciated that, in the 18th century, every commander departing on a threeyear voyage of exploration would have known of the murder of Abel Tasman’s men by Maori.

Captain Cook would certainly have been very cautious if a landing crew had been challenged by Maori. As a military commander, he may have fired and asked questions later.

My research into star pillar navigation concepts indicates that the Polynesian settlements of the 13th century were part of an ordered colonisation in which the exploration navigators took information home to Hawaiiki that allowed the eastern Pacific ruling priesthood to assign star pillar derived position lines for settlement of Aotearoa.

Cook was carrying out a similar exploration data survey. [Abridged]

Dominion Post 7/10/19
Funny and peculiar how history can be rewritten such as by TV One's news last Friday. The item related to Cook's visit to Poverty Bay in 1769 was described as the "first encounter between Maori and Europeans".

But Te Ara encyclopaedia says "the first encounter between Maori and Europeans took place in December 1642 at what is now called Golden Bay. Tasman named it Murderers Bay after a violent encounter with Maori. "As Maori approached the Dutch ships in canoes, one canoe rammed a ship's boat that was passing between Tasman's two vessels, killing four Dutchmen. One Maori was hit by a shot from Tasman's men in response to the attack." Which one is correct?
TONY ORMAN, Marlborough

Sunday Star Times 6/10/19
Damien Grant (‘‘Dame Whina vs The Avengers’’, Focus, September 29) is right to be cynical of the proposal to make the teaching of New Zealand history compulsory in our schools. Will the Ministry of Education prepare a warts-and all history, or a revised and sanitised version? What we don’t need is, as Neal Stephenson, author of Snow Crash, put it: ‘‘This is how history is done now. People wait until they have a need for some history and then they customise it to suit their purposes.’’

Maori are keen for a compulsory history of the New Zealand Wars, the British and colonisation and avoiding any serious discussion of, for example, the holocaust that was the Musket Wars, the invasion of the Chathams and the genocide of the Moriori, and Te Rauparaha’s blood-drenched rampage through the South Island. The main purpose here seems to weave a new korowai of victimhood for ideological and financial gain.

I am in favour of New Zealand history being taught in schools, but it has to based on fact and not the elevation of sensitivity over truth. It must be factual, it must be complete, unbiased and, most importantly, it must be acceptable to all New Zealanders.

Grant rightly warns of the danger of teaching kids a ‘‘politically correct and sanitised history’’and rightly explains that it’s basically about the control of thought.

It is worth noting that, at the same time, any Christian teaching is being removed from schools and replaced, not by neutrality but by the ideology of identity politics we now see all around us. Although adorned in rainbows and proclaimed in female voices, it too is about control: it conquers by dividing.

Gisborne Herald 4/10/19
My response to Meredith:

Story telling belongs in literature. History is about the truth and verifiable facts.

This may be unpleasant at times, but it is the only thing that releases people’s aspirations and hopes.

Story-telling “history”, based on “personal stories”, can only subvert justice and engenders prejudice.
Thanking you.

Dominion Post 4/10/19
Re the Rawiri Taonui opinion piece, whilst many people may accept the land at Ihumatao is of spiritual significance to Maori, the process for giving it back has consequences and costs.

Maori have done themselves no favours in the way they have conducted themselves.

Fletcher negotiated in good faith with the local iwi and thought they had a deal. For Dr Taonui to say that Fletcher should do the right thing and apologise to them and go elsewhere is arrogant in the extreme.

I'm sure Fletcher will be happy to get out of this mess, but responsibility for costs should rest firmly with Maori.

Dr Taonui makes some valid points about how the Crown has made questionable use of public money to bail out insurance and finance companies during the global financial crisis, but paying for the return of Oruarangi to them would be another.

By all means let Maori have the land back, but they need to do the honourable thing and either pay for it or offer up another parcel of their land suitable for housing development. 
MIKE JARVIS, Paraparaumu Beach

Weekend Sun / Sunlive 4/10/19
Do I laugh or cry at the full page 'Councillor rating' undertaken by Max Mason, a one trimester Councillor who has been cycling around Australia since the end of August.

A Councillors salary plus extras amounts to approx $80,000. Mason is not standing for Council again and by my calculations that is six weeks and approx $9230.76 that the long suffering ratepayer has funded and got nothing in return.

Ah! But I am wrong. Mason voted by phone in the Mission Street fiasco, on three occasions. Twice voting with Baldock, Clout, Malloy, Morris and Curach to give 11 Mission Street to the Otamataha Trust and a third time with the aforementioned plus Grainger, to give 11 Mission Street to the Otamataha Trust and the Elms.

The ultimate cost for the ratepayer of the Council fiasco over the Elms and many other decisions made in this trimester is nothing short of abysmal.

Gisborne Herald 3/10/19
Former mayor and now Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon should retract and apologise for his statements regarding the deaths of local Maori during Cook’s 1769 landing here.

First and foremost, these deaths were not murder. The charge of murder requires intent, and there is no evidence that Cook or his crew intended to murder anyone in New Zealand.

In fact, they had specific instructions on how to behave with local inhabitants.

The journals and diaries of those on the Endeavour indicate deep regret at what occurred.

Manslaughter it may have been, on the grounds of self-defence — but murder it most certainly was not.

Second, no apology was expressed to local iwi by the British High Commissioner. Regret, not apology, was the word carefully chosen to express the official attitude to what happened when Cook landed here.

Mr Foon is quite wrong in persisting with the use of the words “murder” and “apology”.

We have already had enough emotion-laden and inaccurate wordage from certain quarters — we certainly don’t need our Race Relations Commissioner inflaming things further. If Mr Foon will not withdraw his words, then I can only urge those in government to warn him to be more careful with his utterances.

To Meredith Akuhata-Brown, I accept your verbal challenge, “Can you handle the truth?” from your September 16 column . . . and put these two back to you.

Your apparent delight in history and the recent announcement that it is to become a new compulsory subject in our schools will cause dilemmas for some.

As an ex-primary school teacher of over 15 years, I immediately see two dilemmas . . . for my surviving colleagues and maybe for you.

The first is: What version of history are the teachers going to be told to teach?

My abridged example relates to the history of the North Island and is from my own schooling in the New Zealand primary schools of the late 1950s and 1960s.

I was taught that a great migration came from within an area then known as the “Polynesian Triangle”. This triangle started at Hawaii, moved down the Pacific, to Easter Island, across to Micronesia, better understood as modern day Indonesia, then back to Hawaii.

The North Island was pulled from the ocean by Maui, while standing on his great waka and using a magical hook.

Fifty years later I know the truth.

Maori DNA stems from an area near Taiwan. The North Island is pushed up on one side by tectonic plates, while being pushed down on the other side by opposing tectonic plates.

These are the two dilemmas/questions for Meredith:

The first is, which version of North Island history is to be the one compulsorily taught to Kiwi children in 2022?

Second is, what subject would you choose to have removed, or reduced, to create the space and time for this “new” subject?

Taranaki Daily News 3/10/19
Where is our country heading when around 120,000 residents in Taranaki are at the mercy of a small North Taranaki iwi approving or rejecting the Mt Messenger bypass project? (Daily News, September 23).

As our province’s transport needs change it is vital that our northern access route be stabilised and secured.The present unstable Mt Messenger road needs replacing.

I find it unbelievable that the small Te Runanga o Ngati Tama Iwi can decide on the future of a vitally important roading project in North Taranaki. Mr Greg White has negotiated the compensation deal with NZTA and it would be interesting to know the amount and terms agreed to.

This was a $200m project but already to the end of 2018 we see the iwi have received $741,659 (for what?) and they are still negotiating the compensation deal. $1.23m has been spent on a land swap and we still have no confirmation of the project’s approval.

While we all value our environment this is a very minor sacrifice to make for progress. I would suggest the farm affected is not an economic unit and would be no loss to the province’s economy. With respect to Te Runanga o Ngati Tama Iwi, it is time to look at the big picture.
W. MAY, New Plymouth

Northland Age 3/10/19
I wonder if Wally Hicks (Letting go, letters September 26), the Crown or the schoolgirl petitioners have ever considered the ‘lasting damage’ to the descendants of the gullible 50-plus who perished while following Rua Kenana’s ideologies. Kenana’s ideologies were opposed by many Maori leaders, including Members of Parliament and doctors at the time, and was partially the reason for the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907.

Dependable research reveals that Kenana was a sly grogger, a polygamist, and unpatriotically supported a German World War I win. He forbade his male followers to enlist in the armed services, and is on record as saying “Any money I have I will give to the Germans.”

Mr Hicks appears to compare Cook’s arrival in New Zealand with Kupe’s — Kupe’s (if he ever existed) legacy was that New Zealand stayed in a state of tribal war, pillage and plunder for around 850 years, with very little progress. In contrast, peace and all the trappings of the modern world (achieved in just 250 years) that all Kiwis enjoy today can be attributed to Cook’s arrival in New Zealand.

Mr Hicks extols the work done by a few tribalists in writing a new constitution for New Zealand. These agenda-driven misfits’ ancestors could not govern New Zealand pre-1840, and begged the British for protection and law and order in 1831, and yet now they are held up by a few as capable of drafting a New Zealand constitution? This exploit will relegate all non-Maori citizens through basing it on the irrelevant Treaty of Waitangi, the non-event 1835 Declaration of Independence, and the constitution of Bolivia, where the group’s convenor, Margaret Mutu, says in Bolivia the native people are the government — and that’s become a model for Maori. Need I say more?

Lastly, could Mr Hicks please produce instances of Pakeha myth-making? I can supply instances of Maori myth-making — Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty in signing the ToW, soldiers assaulting women at the reclaiming of Parihaka, the wicked white coloniser stole 25.2 million hectares of Maori land, 144 Maori were burnt to death in a church at Rangioawhia which General Cameron set fire to, that Kereopa Te Rau was totally innocent of the murder of missionary Carl Volkner — this list could go on ad infinitum.

Wanganui Chronicle 3/10/19
Your correspondent M.J. Fore (September 20) refers to “only 39 chiefs signing the English version of the Treaty”.

Had Mr Fore done any research he would know the reason why that version of the Treaty was used.

About a month after the Treaty of Waitangi signing, Rev. Maunsell invited Ma¯ ori south of the Manukau Harbour to a gathering at his mission station at Port Waikato.

About 1500 attended, including the Waikato Chief Te Wherowhero.

Maunsell had been promised a copy of the Maori version of the Treaty would be couriered to him, but it did not arrive on time so he improvised by using a copy of the “Freeman” English version.

It is very well documented that those present were well aware of the meaning of the document they were asked to sign.

Thirty-two mainly Waikato/Tainui Maori signed on the day, and a further seven a few days later at Waiuku.

That signing of 32 chiefs was third largest of all.

The language on the paper did not diminish the significance of the event.

Sorry, Mr Fore; there is nothing sinister to be found.
MURRAY REID, Cambridge

Kiwi Frontline 1/10/19
After nearly 4 months the Ihumatao land is still occupied by SOUL mischief-makers. Fletchers legitimately own this land and local iwi are more than happy with the Fletchers deal struck by them for land and houses and so they should be. Suddenly out of the blue the interlopers/trespassers appear on the scene without any colour of right or connection, unlawfully occupying the 33.8 ha land acquired by Fletchers in 2016 for around $40million.

Kowtow to the bullying demands and the loss to Fletchers will be the purchase price, holding costs, loss of profits on the sale of homes and sections plus all legal, survey planning and consultant’s costs incurred to date which is conservatively estimated around $150m. Local maori would lose the negotiated 8ha.and around 40 new homes. Current cost to Kiwi taxpayer for police & political input is already at least $3million.

There are said to be 4 options Fletchers could gift land, Government could purchase, or fund Tainui to do so or Auckland City Council could purchase or the status quo prevails which is only legitimate choice.

There must be no Government / taxpayer or Council ratepayer/bailouts – as that sets another Titford farm type precedent.

Why not let 5000 interlopers fund it, @ $30,000 each – that should do the trick, then Fletchers can just walk away. In addition the interlopers of course still have to fulfil the deal struck with local maori. However, this ain’t what the whinging great unwashed, unemployed rabble want, as it’s not their modis operandi of always wanting something for nothing and stuff everyone else

Well the ultimate final solution is just arrest the trespassers remove them from Fletcher’s land send them packing and where appropriate institute criminal proceedings. This is no Bastion Point and no negotiations are necessary for what is privately owned land. Oh, and Fletchers don’t forget to seek a fawning apology from the Government and maori interests.

.Most law abiding Kiwis don’t want a bar of buckling to violence threats ,intimidation, unlawful behaviour or fairy tales and rightly so too. Fletchers have followed all the correct protocols with ihumatao land and Otuataua Stonefields and no one has suggested otherwise.

To argue with people who have renounced the use of reason and authority and whose philosophy consists in holding fellow Kiwis in contempt is like administering medicine to the brain dead. Their sense of entitlement is delusional built on self-centredness, greed and laziness and contrary to their opinion, no one owes them anything.

Your article “Lessons in identity” (September 17th) was extremely interesting. But fundamentally we are approaching this vexed problem in the wrong way. Instead of striving to preserve our various cultures, whether Pakeha, Maori or recent immigrants, we should consciously accept with confidence and pride the culture we grew up in, and build on that - but, at the same time, consciously try to adapt our lives, habits and behaviour to the present New Zealand culture. Whether we like it or not, Aotearoa now is dominated by a European, capitalistic culture, upheld by democratically chosen legislation. This sort of culture conflicts massively with all other cultures, including Maori.

We must consciously choose to completely forego our various different cultures and try, as best we can, to build a culture which, hopefully, within not too many generations will be exactly the same for all of us. And as we are intermarrying so delightfully and successfully at present, we will then all be a lovely hue of a mixture of black, pink, yellow and brown. Wish I could be there!