< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Learned Activist Lectures Reserve Bank Governor

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Learned Activist Lectures Reserve Bank Governor

There is no better reason for booting Labour out than to stop this sort of impudent, imprudent and insolent dogerell dressed up as 'opinion.' It reminds me of a dog eared little giggling fourth former in the back row of class, telling the maths teacher with an Masters Degree that two and two makes five.

'I have now spent some time reading Don Brash's speech from Monday, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Don Brash doesn't actually understand what he is talking about.'

That was enough to tell me I need not read any further. Jordan, I wish you would learn that all you are achieving is the destruction of your own credibility.

This morning's Fairfax poll don't seem to bear out your thesis. Can't you see the tanks rolling by in the background?
ยท Linked Article

Posted by Adolf Fiinkensein | 9/03/2005 10:31:00 AM

24 Comments:

Blogger ZenTiger said...

That's Jordan spin for "I come reluctantly to the conclusion Brash has a different opinion from me.

Jordan's first example is to contest Brash's statement that the Treaty Claim process is coming unglued.

That is a fair warning when you consider some of the "full and final" claims are now being announced as not final. It seems the settlement fee was not enough, and its back to the courts to do another final settlement.

Reminds me a bit of the Treaty. That was a document to protect Maori from being victims of a violent clash of culture. Even unto themselves, as tribal wars erupted, backed by guns instead of clubs.

In becoming "one people" under the Treaty the future was a little less destructive than it would otherwise have been. That doesn't mean it wasn't violent, and that doesn't mean there are not genuine grievances to sort out.

But it did set out a way forward:

1. Queen rules supreme (would the British agree to anything less??)

2. Maori Chiefs could be chiefs over their own tribes. If they sold land it had to be to the Crown.

3. Maori become equal subjects under British law. That was not partnership rule, but it did guarantee justice was deserving to all, and their Tribal property protected by rule of law under the British Empire.

Some property was confiscated, some sold by Tribes who refused to sign the Treaty, some sold fair and square and every-thing in between. It's tough and complicated, but Jordan's view is just one. IMO, he acts like it is the only one, and one that Maori should also agree to.

He probably has the guilts over Canadian treatment of Indians, who were there first, but only have reservations (pun intended).

He will no doubt be a little surprised when he grasps that this process may create more radicals across the spectrum, rather than providing fair redress.

Who will he blame then? Labour for turning their back on the Maori MP's they rejected?

9/03/2005 12:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And dont forget the real reason the Maori chiefs signed up with old Queen Vicky was the French were thinking about adding NZ to their colonies And those Maori boys already knew that the Frenchies dont take no prisoners
Triana and Pita should be grateful it was my ole ancestors that they got instead of the Frenchies
gd

9/03/2005 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Wellington Bob?

9/03/2005 05:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

Yeah, those Maoris are real lucky we nicked their country instead of the Frogs. How lucky can you get?

9/03/2005 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

PM: Odd to see you ignore the Treaty of Waitangi completely.

Most people accept the ToW, but have problems with:
1) Which translation to use.
2) Original intent vs present day interpretation.
3) The claims process turned into a decades-long gravy train seemingly without end.
4) The apparent desire of some people on the Left to give Maori special legal rights simply because of their ethnicity (thats racism, for the slow of mind).

9/03/2005 06:25:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

"those Maoris" are now dead, Psycho. And so are those who "nicked their country". And who's this "we"?

9/03/2005 08:51:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

I gave up persuading Paul that there is indeed a preference towards Maori under our law. He even unwitting provided an example of it after denying it exists. When caught out, he sought to justify it on the grounds of being inclusive, as though Maori are otherwise excluded(!), when that was debunked he set out to say it was OK because it only adversely affects very few.

That's pretty screwed up lefty thinking if you ask me.

Or simpleton brainwashing, I'm not sure.

9/03/2005 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

It was a good effort, Paul. I read your comments and ignored his. Unfortunately the odd phrase jumps out at me before I realise it's him. He even tried to say something to me, silly man can't even get my name right.

9/03/2005 10:11:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Ha silly boy! Like you I try to ignore his comments but I just can't stand by and let rantings go unanswered.

9/03/2005 10:17:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I can understand that. I just got a point where I didn't want to allow him to verbally abuse me anymore. He's the only one on my ignore list (I won't read or respond to him and have told him so) and when I get some time, I'll write something to actually physically remove him from my view of the just left website.

9/03/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

Lucyna, if the Germans were still occupying Poland, would it matter, now that the invaders and evicted were mostly dead? At what point would the Poles be able to state with pride "We are all Germans"? After 100 years? 200 years? Do I hear "Never!"? Cultures outlive their members.

AL: The ToW is a big subject, and my comment was more of a snide one-liner before going out for the day. But now that you've all gone to bed (and I'm probably free from retaliation, he-he) I'll have a go at it.

I think Don Brash is banking on lots of people not accepting the ToW. Personally I'm not surprised that anyone has problems with the things you mention, but I do have a few points to make about them:

1. Which translation to use. The guys that wrote it made the Maori translation sound a lot better for Maori than the English version did, for perhaps understandable reasons. So it's no surprise that Maori would prefer their translation to be the official one. However, that simply won't ever happen, because we're now the majority and it wouldn't be in our interests. It's just a matter of facing reality - we may have nicked their country, but our country now exists and won't go away. On the same basis, the Palestinians won't ever get anywhere until they accept that Israel now exists and isn't going to go away. And unlike the Israelis, we have in the ToW a document that says we're allowed to live here (unless you count the Old Testament, which I don't).

2. Original intent vs present day interpretation. Well, this is something that also is a problem with the Constitution of the USA, a vastly better-drafted better document than the ToW, so I expect permanent controversy here.

3. The claims process. A claims process is pretty much inevitable, given the huge breaches of the Treaty that we came up with since it was signed. Given how much was lost by Maori, I don't think describing as a gravy train the few cents in the dollar they're getting back is accurate. There's plenty that bothers me about the process too. But I think it's way, way better that we have a really thorough, decades-long process at the end of which in each case we can say this has been gone into as thoroughly as humanly possible, rather than slap a cut-off date on it and run the remaining cases through the courts with speed foremost in mind - that would be a guaranteed recipe for future generations refusing to accept that their case was settled properly.

4. The desire of some on the Left to give Maori special legal rights simply because of their ethnicity. Well, some on the Left are twats and nutters, as is indeed the case with some on the Right! I don't think it's racism - for me, racism involves putting your own race ahead of others, not wanting to put other races ahead of your own. So it's racist when the Maori Party proposes it (and they aren't lefties - don't pin them on us!), but it's more like patronising and insulting when left-wing whiteys propose it...

9/04/2005 01:15:00 AM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I can agree with much of what PM says, except for the it about the current state of affairs not being a gravy train. It is a disgraceful rort and the people missing out most are ordinary Maori.

9/04/2005 04:33:00 AM  
Blogger Chron Gen said...

Paul from Just Left is something else isn't he ! I conjure up images of Rik from the Young Ones when I try to imagine what he is like. Check is entry times, notice how he posts at all hours 24/7, ensuring he always gets the last word in. When he can't come up with a rational response he resorts to his usual ranting, accusing nonsense. Thankfully he keeps away from here.

9/04/2005 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Psycho, if the Germans were still occupying Poland now, there would be no Poles left. Their plan was to kill us all.

Settlement and invasion are two different things.

9/04/2005 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Oh, and Poles were classified as "sub-human" by the General Governement set up in Poland. Normal, German law did not apply there.

The Treaty gave Maori equal rights to the settlers under English law. Very, very, very different.

9/04/2005 12:11:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

On (3): There certainly is a gravy train, run by some prominent lawyers and other people who make alot of money out of the claims 'process'. which coincidentally has gone on long enough to make their careers. How about that. And no I don't think its acceptable. And as Adolf points out, the people who lose out are the ones the claims process should help the most. Ha.

On (4): it mightnt appear racist to the people promoting the policy, but it certainly appears racist to the people excluded by it. However our journey down this route appears to be halted after Brash's Orewa I speech.

The politically correct aspect of the ToW industry is still preserved though. There are numerous organisations which require knowledge of the ToW to get a job, for example to be certified as a professional civil engineer.

9/04/2005 01:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

Lucyna: in other words, yes it would matter, very much, even if the people involved were all dead now.

Adolf & AL: yes, the bit about what ordinary Maori are getting out of it bothers me too - if they get shafted, that's also a recipe for people later on trying to relitigate the whole business. But it's a sad truth that wherever large sums of money are involved, clever people are going to find ways to direct some of it into their own pockets. And the legal system in general is a gravy train for lawyers. I wouldn't mind Brash's Orewa 1 and 2 speeches if I thought it was all about tightening the process up so we could be sure it would be accepted by all as final judgement in the various cases, but to anyone on the left those speeches sound more like "we're all sick of this shit so let's finish it up and be done with it". Which is why they're all going on about dog whistles (personally I don't think Brash has anything against Maori or any racist agenda, but politics is about damaging your opponent, not treating him fairly - another reason to stay out of the business).

9/04/2005 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Psycho, my family's land that used to be Poland and is now the Ukraine was stolen. We've let it go. because everyone has new lives now. Poland and the Ukraine have been mending fences over greviances. Just recently a cemetery in Lviv (used to be Lwow) to the Polish defenders (against the Ukranians) in 1920 was re-opened. Lviv used was a Polish city for centuries, now it's Ukranian. My Dad grew up near there, near Ternapol (used to be Tarnapol - another Polish city). No one's trying to get them back.

Germany had some of it's land given to Poland in lieu of the land Russia (now the Ukraine) stole. Some Germans involved have tried to get it back - that was quashed by the German government.

Blaming past greviances for current bad situations beyond a generation is really something I can't get my head around. I am in no way disadvantaged because both my parents had property taken in Poland (and family killed). People start again all the time.

9/04/2005 05:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

Sure. But the Maori aren't asking for New Zealand back. They're asking for compensation for breaches of a Treaty we signed with them. You can afford to be generous regarding the division of Poland, because Poland today is still a large, independent country owned and run by Poles. That's not the situation the Maori are in. They've mostly come to terms with the fact that we ("we" because cultures outlive their members, and it was our culture wot did it) nicked their country and made it ours, and they mostly accept that the ToW gives us the right to be in NZ. That's no small achievement. All they're demanding is a few cents in the dollar back on what we took in breach of the ToW, and that we keep to the terms of it in future. That's a long way from blaming past grievances for current bad situations as far as I can see. You'd think we'd be happy.

9/04/2005 09:11:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Psycho, I do not accept that anyone "nicked their country and made it ours".

I'm not protesting breaches of the Treaty, sure they ought to be settled.

But, there was no Maori country to nick. There were a collection of tribes that lived here, not a unified country. The creation of New Zealand as a country occured when the treaty was signed. Before that, there was no country.

Actually, maybe there wasn't even a country at that point. Didn't that happen much later, like around 1900? I must admit I really don't know.

At the time the treaty was signed, I think NZ was still part of NSW.

Size is also relative.

9/04/2005 09:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

"But, there was no Maori country to nick. There were a collection of tribes that lived here, not a unified country."
Technically correct, but disingenuous. It amounts to saying that it was OK to take NZ off them because they didn't have a flag or a head of state. The place was all theirs until we turned up and made it ours, by force when necessary. A desire to define the theft out of existence is understandable but should be resisted. It's a mistake to sanitise your history - "to thine own self be true" and all that.

9/04/2005 09:47:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Psycho, it is you who are being disingenious. Your statement of "we nicked their country and made it ours" hides what actually happened. It implies "we" live here and "they" (those that had their land nicked) do not. That completely untrue.

I am curious as to when you consider the land to have been "nicked"? What it when the first non-Maori arrived - the act of arriving and settling became the act of nicking? Or was it the Treaty? Or is every NZ'er that is non-Maori, by the act of being born here, continuing to participate in the nicking?

Until you define exactly what you mean in clear language, we are going to have problems talking about this.

9/04/2005 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Paul said...

Maori had no concept of ownership, that is actually why we have Maori Seats, they arose from suffrage being based on land ownership (a bit like voting in local body elections, or paying rates for that matter) but Maori held tenure collectively so individually couldn't vote. Thus the creation of Maori seats to by-pass the land ownership issue.

Now that we are all in the 21st centaury with MMP I am quite happy to see the un-entrenched Maori Seats go, they simply no longer serve their intended purpose. But I've wandered off, "land theft"?

So, without a concept of ownership, how in fact could "land theft" actually occur?

It is cute that our voting system fails to move on by retaining Maori Seats established to remedy a situation that arose the late 1800's, yet we are expected to judge land issues emanating from actions at the same time by 21st centaury standards.

That is why I think the Maori Party in particular is racist, but so too are those who support the retention of those Seats.

9/04/2005 10:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Psycho Milt said...

I stole the "nicked their country" comment from Blackadder - from memory, Blackadder in referring to the good old days in the British army of the nineteenth century, said "...and if you saw a bloke in a skirt you shot him and nicked his country". The implication isn't that the previous owners no longer live there, it's that they still live there but they don't own the place any more. In the case of NZ, the Maori still live here but they don't own it any more. They lost ownership of the place somehow, and we gained it - but Lucyna says there's nothing to see here folks, move along there.

Re when the land was nicked, it was a slow process with no point at which you could say "There, look - they stole NZ!" But I'd be very interested to know what you think the New Zealand Wars, Parihaka etc were all about.

Re whether every Pakeha born here thereby continues to participate in this theft, I think I've explained my view in earlier posts, but I'll have another go. We may have made the country of NZ by taking over someone else's country, but the country of NZ now exists and isn't going to cease to exist if we can help it. It's now just a historical fact that we and the Maori have to live with, and generally do. Maori have for the most part accepted that their country is no longer theirs, and we have for the most part accepted that the least we can do is compensate for specific land losses that can be shown to be in breach of the ToW, and do our best not to go breaching the thing in future.

Paul: disingenuous is far too weak a term to describe your amusing notion that Maori land couldn't be stolen because they had no concept of ownership. For one thing, those guys understood the difference between their land and another tribe's just as well as you understand the difference between your property and your neighbour's. For another, assuming they hadn't had any concept of ownership, presumably no baby's candy would be safe from you.

9/04/2005 11:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home