Discussion:
"There's a lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(too old to reply)
Newsman
2011-05-05 21:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.

(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)

"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)

(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment "process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)

Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
WorkHard
2011-05-05 22:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.

And what does "a special place" actually mean?

Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?

We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.

But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.

It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.

And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
Roger Dewhurst
2011-05-05 23:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?

R

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
Allistar
2011-05-05 23:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white?
White? That's a colour, not an ethnicity or "ancestry".
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
Goes to show how silly the whole "classify people as an ethnicity" thing is.
Not quite as silly as "treat people of different perceived ethnicities
differently" is.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
No. That's prejudiced.
--
Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous
only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent.
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 02:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
An example would be useful . . .
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
Subject of course to contract - does the Treaty of Waitangi mean
anything to you? The new far-right mantra however sees a contract as
only as effective as cannot be ignored, and with a compliant
government, much can be ignored . . . Property rights only count if
you have paid your dues to The Party . . . .
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
I agree - we do not really need to hear from Farrar, Banks, Brash, etc
- quite unnecessary.
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white?
White? That's a colour, not an ethnicity or "ancestry".
I agre Allistar - it is surprising how bigotry will come through . . .

What is relevant of course id the definition of Maori that was
accepted at the time the Treaty was singed - and that of course did
not refer to colour of skin.
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
Well actually no.
Post by Allistar
Post by Roger Dewhurst
If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?
Perhaps it is a good thing that it is not and will not be the criteria
- I suspect Roger did not even think about racism when he wrote that
post . . .
Post by Allistar
With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
Post by Roger Dewhurst
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
Goes to show how silly the whole "classify people as an ethnicity" thing is.
Not quite as silly as "treat people of different perceived ethnicities
differently" is.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
No. That's prejudiced.
Yes, Roger is prejudiced.
WD
2011-05-06 04:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
An example would be useful . . .
snip


I presume WorkHard would include anyone having their land confiscated
under compulsory purchase. Motorway being built through Mt Albert/
Waterview for instance.


Weihana.
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 05:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by WD
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
An example would be useful . . .
snip
I presume WorkHard would include anyone having their land confiscated
under compulsory purchase. Motorway being built through Mt Albert/
Waterview for instance.
Weihana.
I had not realised it was the Troll. Thanks Weihana.
JohnO
2011-05-05 23:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 02:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
JohnO
2011-05-06 03:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
John Cawston
2011-05-06 07:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.

It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.

The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.

Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.

JC
Roger Dewhurst
2011-05-06 21:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in
each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.
The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.
Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.
JC
Do you know of any plausible reason why someone whose ancestry is more
than 50% non maori should be classified as maori?

R

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
John Cawston
2011-05-06 22:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in
each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.
The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.
Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.
JC
Do you know of any plausible reason why someone whose ancestry is more
than 50% non maori should be classified as maori?
Technically, I believe there are no people who would meet a 50%
classification, yet plainly we do still have a Maori people. Its thus a
cultural distinction in the same way that a person from the UK might
huffily say he isn't a European.. he's Welsh.

JC
Post by Roger Dewhurst
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 23:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in
each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.
The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.
Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.
JC
Do you know of any plausible reason why someone whose ancestry is more
than 50% non maori should be classified as maori?
Technically, I believe there are no people who would meet a 50%
classification, yet plainly we do still have a Maori people. Its thus a
cultural distinction in the same way that a person from the UK might
huffily say he isn't a European.. he's Welsh.
JC
Post by Roger Dewhurst
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
Your attempts to minimise differences between Maori and other New
Zealanders are typical of the ignorant right - the Treaty of Waitangi
did not reflect mere cultural differences, and that has been borne out
by many judicial decisions arising from that Treaty - including some
that have come to a conclusion during the term of the current
government. Yes there are cultural differences, but the Treaty cannot
be so easily dismissed, Roger, much though you may wish it to be so.
Roger Dewhurst
2011-05-07 00:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Your attempts to minimise differences between Maori and other New
Zealanders are typical of the ignorant right - the Treaty of Waitangi
did not reflect mere cultural differences, and that has been borne out
by many judicial decisions arising from that Treaty - including some
that have come to a conclusion during the term of the current
government. Yes there are cultural differences, but the Treaty cannot
be so easily dismissed, Roger, much though you may wish it to be so.
I am not trying to minimise the differences. While the law is applied
differently to Maoris and non-maoris it is necessary to be able to
identify those who are Maoris and those who are not. It should not be
sufficient to claim "I am a maori" in order to obtain some benefit. As
long as preferential treatment exists, in any form, for maoris there
will be people who are predominantly non-maori taking advantage of that
preferential treatment. As the population intermarries there will be an
increasing proportion of the population who can and will claim
entitlement. While the proportion of the population claiming to be
maori increases the actual maori ancestry will be diluted generation by
generation leading ultimately to a homogeneous population of which a
large part, perhaps a majority, indistinguishable from the other part
culturally and by appearance, claims some special entitlements at the
expense of the other. At the time the Treaty was written maoris were
maoris and europeans were europeans. The treaty did not take into
account that in the 21st century there would be no maoris of unmixed
ancestry but a population made up partly of people of mixed maori and
european ancestry, people of unmixed european ancestry and a significant
proportion of others. What I have written is factual. What you and
others have written is self seeking waffle.

R


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-07 00:22:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 May 2011 12:15:27 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Your attempts to minimise differences between Maori and other New
Zealanders are typical of the ignorant right - the Treaty of Waitangi
did not reflect mere cultural differences, and that has been borne out
by many judicial decisions arising from that Treaty - including some
that have come to a conclusion during the term of the current
government. Yes there are cultural differences, but the Treaty cannot
be so easily dismissed, Roger, much though you may wish it to be so.
I am not trying to minimise the differences. While the law is applied
differently to Maoris and non-maoris it is necessary to be able to
identify those who are Maoris and those who are not. It should not be
sufficient to claim "I am a maori" in order to obtain some benefit. As
long as preferential treatment exists, in any form, for maoris there
will be people who are predominantly non-maori taking advantage of that
preferential treatment. As the population intermarries there will be an
increasing proportion of the population who can and will claim
entitlement. While the proportion of the population claiming to be
maori increases the actual maori ancestry will be diluted generation by
generation leading ultimately to a homogeneous population of which a
large part, perhaps a majority, indistinguishable from the other part
culturally and by appearance, claims some special entitlements at the
expense of the other. At the time the Treaty was written maoris were
maoris and europeans were europeans. The treaty did not take into
account that in the 21st century there would be no maoris of unmixed
ancestry but a population made up partly of people of mixed maori and
european ancestry, people of unmixed european ancestry and a significant
proportion of others. What I have written is factual. What you and
others have written is self seeking waffle.
R
What entitlements or benefits are you referring to Roger?
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-07 05:56:50 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sat, 07 May 2011 12:15:27 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Your attempts to minimise differences between Maori and other New
Zealanders are typical of the ignorant right - the Treaty of Waitangi
did not reflect mere cultural differences, and that has been borne out
by many judicial decisions arising from that Treaty - including some
that have come to a conclusion during the term of the current
government. Yes there are cultural differences, but the Treaty cannot
be so easily dismissed, Roger, much though you may wish it to be so.
I am not trying to minimise the differences. While the law is applied
differently to Maoris and non-maoris it is necessary to be able to
identify those who are Maoris and those who are not. It should not be
sufficient to claim "I am a maori" in order to obtain some benefit. As
long as preferential treatment exists, in any form, for maoris there
will be people who are predominantly non-maori taking advantage of that
preferential treatment. As the population intermarries there will be an
increasing proportion of the population who can and will claim
entitlement. While the proportion of the population claiming to be
maori increases the actual maori ancestry will be diluted generation by
generation leading ultimately to a homogeneous population of which a
large part, perhaps a majority, indistinguishable from the other part
culturally and by appearance, claims some special entitlements at the
expense of the other. At the time the Treaty was written maoris were
maoris and europeans were europeans. The treaty did not take into
account that in the 21st century there would be no maoris of unmixed
ancestry but a population made up partly of people of mixed maori and
european ancestry, people of unmixed european ancestry and a significant
proportion of others. What I have written is factual. What you and
others have written is self seeking waffle.
But you are still a miserable old bleating pommie bastard.
You have been told several times that if you don't like it or you aren't willing
to fit in, then you should go back to where you came from.
You don't have the right to tell us how to run our country, no matter how long
you have been here.
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
Janet
2011-05-07 06:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Sat, 07 May 2011 12:15:27 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Your attempts to minimise differences between Maori and other New
Zealanders are typical of the ignorant right - the Treaty of Waitangi
did not reflect mere cultural differences, and that has been borne out
by many judicial decisions arising from that Treaty - including some
that have come to a conclusion during the term of the current
government. Yes there are cultural differences, but the Treaty cannot
be so easily dismissed, Roger, much though you may wish it to be so.
I am not trying to minimise the differences. While the law is applied
differently to Maoris and non-maoris it is necessary to be able to
identify those who are Maoris and those who are not. It should not be
sufficient to claim "I am a maori" in order to obtain some benefit. As
long as preferential treatment exists, in any form, for maoris there
will be people who are predominantly non-maori taking advantage of that
preferential treatment. As the population intermarries there will be an
increasing proportion of the population who can and will claim
entitlement. While the proportion of the population claiming to be
maori increases the actual maori ancestry will be diluted generation by
generation leading ultimately to a homogeneous population of which a
large part, perhaps a majority, indistinguishable from the other part
culturally and by appearance, claims some special entitlements at the
expense of the other. At the time the Treaty was written maoris were
maoris and europeans were europeans. The treaty did not take into
account that in the 21st century there would be no maoris of unmixed
ancestry but a population made up partly of people of mixed maori and
european ancestry, people of unmixed european ancestry and a significant
proportion of others. What I have written is factual. What you and
others have written is self seeking waffle.
But you are still a miserable old bleating pommie bastard.
You have been told several times that if you don't like it or you aren't willing
to fit in, then you should go back to where you came from.
You don't have the right to tell us how to run our country, no matter how long
you have been here.
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
Yep he does if he is a citizen, like I am, and I vote as I suspect he does,
unlike you who gloat about not being on the roll for tears and tears the
when questions get sticky you suddenly change your tune and say you are on
the roll under another name, same name as your firearms licence or is that
different as well. Oh well, at least you told the doctors at the hospital
the truth, which in turn got you your lovely diagnosis of psychopath etc,
one would have thought with this diagnosis impending you would have done
what you do best and lie in the interview, more than you already had I
mean.

Interesting doco on psychopaths, can live in and around others for many
many years, not liked particularly not that s psychopath cares, then one
day something goes SNAP and they become violent sadistic murderers, surely
the little town has had enough blood shed to last a livetime without a
rejected dunny cleaner murdering people left right and center.
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2011-05-07 12:41:58 UTC
Permalink
On May 7, 12:15 pm, Roger Dewhurst <***@wave.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
 While the law is applied differently to Maoris and
non-maoris it is necessary to be able to identify
those who are Maoris and those who are not.  It
should not be sufficient to claim "I am a maori"
in order to obtain some benefit. [snip] As the
population intermarries there will be an increasing
proportion of the population who can and will claim
entitlement.  
As someone who is concerned about immigration issues, Roger, you could
applaud this, for it means many 'whites' will/may have preferential
treatment over the muslim immigrants who you warn against (and claim
dont interbreded and intergrate)!!!!!

It be be that whitey will be using thier touch of brown blood to fend
off the rag-heads! :)
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 22:39:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:25:44 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in
each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.
The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.
Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.
JC
Do you know of any plausible reason why someone whose ancestry is more
than 50% non maori should be classified as maori?
R
Of course, and it is a concern that you cannot envisage such a reason.
Mo
2011-05-06 22:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@hotmail.com
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:25:44 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment "process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in
each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
It follows that there are no 50% Maori either, just some lesser
percentages running at some hypothetical 6/8ths average. Anyone born
around the 1940s living in rural NZ should be able to comment on the
physical changes in Maori over 60 odd years.. towards a more European look.
The other stat worth noting is one true for many years.. 50% of adult
people who self identify as Maori have European partners. Thats also
true of Aussie Aborigines.
Another indicator.. at the end of the 19th century Maori were in free
fall, dying out, down to around 40,000.. but now there are hundreds of
thousands.. thats the impact of Europeans.. no mean baby producers in
their day.
JC
Do you know of any plausible reason why someone whose ancestry is more
than 50% non maori should be classified as maori?
R
Of course, and it is a concern that you cannot envisage such a reason.
Rich, you'd be better off arguing with a lump of granite.
Lyndon Watson
2011-05-07 03:50:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native. You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor. Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu. Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.

So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori. I have no reason to
disbelieve him. Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage. Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.

These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist. We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices. To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.

The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life. It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.

LW
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-07 04:54:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 May 2011 20:50:23 -0700 (PDT), Lyndon Watson
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native. You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor. Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu. Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori. I have no reason to
disbelieve him. Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage. Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist. We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices. To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life. It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
LW
Thank you Lyndon. Indeed there is a lot of ignorance out there. While
some do not understand, I abhor the deliberate incitement of racial
tension by some politicians with the implication that some general
economic problems can somehow be blamed on [purported 'unfair'
contracts which in other respects they claim to respect and honour.
WorkHard
2011-05-07 09:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyndon Watson
It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who
did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing
effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
You're sick in the head.

No man is responsible for another man's wrong doings.
Janet
2011-05-07 22:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Lyndon Watson
It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who
did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing
effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
You're sick in the head.
No man is responsible for another man's wrong doings.
Perhaps the fact I only have 1.5 hours sleep last night has addled my brain
but I thought Lyndon agrees with you : "It is especially contenmpible to
hear.........

Two things annoy me, those who try to blame their behaviour on someone or
something else, what they did they chose to do willfully but I also hate
people who wear guilt like a second skin and live vicariously through
someone who is trying to blame their behaviour on someone or something
else. The person performing said action feels no guilt or remorse so this
second person leaps in and does it for them to feed their need for
negativity, they are drawn to it.

If I fuck up, break something or uintentionally offend or upset someone, I
feel sick of the thought of hving to face them, but I do try my hardest to
put my hand up and confess (for want of a better word) my wrong doing etc
I have much to lose, and have lost things in the past, but I assure you
living free of guilt is extremely liberating and I rarely lose sleep over
something I have done or said. Guilt uses a lot of energy, and I need that
energy to fight my own battles health wise primarily, but also in my
interpersonal relationships ranging from people I do business through to my
friends in differing amounts.

I know people who would stand in front of you and slam say a coffee mug
into the floor, then, swiflty say something like "Now loook what you MADE
me do" or "Well that's not my problem. And the worst part is it starts with
a coffee mug and end with, well you fill in the gaps.
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
Lyn
2011-05-07 11:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native.  You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor.  Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu.  Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori.  I have no reason to
disbelieve him.  Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage.  Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist.  We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices.  To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life.  It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
LW
Plse be careful of who you accuse of whining about it. Most of the
people who ripped Maori off have departed these shores a long time
ago. The rest of us are innocent.
Janet
2011-05-08 01:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native.  You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor.  Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu.  Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori.  I have no reason to
disbelieve him.  Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage.  Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist.  We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices.  To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life.  It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
LW
Plse be careful of who you accuse of whining about it. Most of the
people who ripped Maori off have departed these shores a long time
ago. The rest of us are innocent.
I am born in the UK came to NZ in 75 as dad was shoulder tapped for a
position in NP but I have had dual citizenship, and I have noticed, people
ofc his sort of age froup late sixties early seventies will be watching
say Crime Watch and think nothing of saying "bloody Maoris" when the truth
is it is "some Maoris" but never utter the words "Bloody white people" who
are just as bad or worse than Maori offenders. I hear mcich less of it in
my sort of area, ealry 40s to early 50's, is it a generational thing or am
I just not hangaing out with racists, ooops tel a lie, did know one woman
who did it all the time, but she was evil and I am just waiting or hrt yo
die after 4 heart attacks already so I can go to funeraol and see who didnt
turn up, then piss and dance on her grave, she got me in the shit so badly
by lying, I was banned from the funeral of one of my closest friends. I
have two bames I have given my old lady to keep an eye out for in the
hatches matches and despachest (no glasses cant see or spell properly) in
the paper, he name and the name of a rapist I know, and biy am I looking
forward to that especially, the latter one because as we all know the shor
isn t over till the fat lady sings, so I could have him in pergatory for
etternety as his best friend FATTYDYKE Janet chapman, I knew there was a
purpoase for this weight issue lololol
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
Lyn
2011-05-08 09:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
Post by Lyn
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native.  You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor.  Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu.  Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori.  I have no reason to
disbelieve him.  Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage.  Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist.  We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices.  To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life.  It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
LW
Plse be careful of who you accuse of whining about it. Most of the
people who ripped Maori off have departed these shores a long time
ago.  The rest of us are innocent.
I am born in the UK came to NZ in 75 as dad was shoulder tapped for a
position in NP but I have had dual citizenship, and I have noticed, people
ofc his sort of age froup late sixties early seventies  will be watching
say Crime Watch and think nothing of saying "bloody Maoris" when the truth
is it is "some Maoris" but never utter the words "Bloody white people" who
are just as bad or worse than Maori offenders. I hear mcich less of it in
my sort of area, ealry 40s to early 50's, is it a generational thing or am
I  just not hangaing out with racists, ooops tel a lie, did know one woman
who did it all the time,  but she was evil and I am just waiting or hrt yo
die after 4 heart attacks already so I can go to funeraol and see who didnt
turn up, then piss and dance on her grave, she got me in the shit so badly
by lying, I was banned from the funeral of one of my closest friends.  I
have two bames I have given my old lady to keep an eye out for in the
hatches matches and despachest (no glasses cant see or spell properly) in
the paper, he name and the name of a rapist I know, and biy am I looking
forward to that  especially, the latter one because as we all know the shor
isn t over till the fat lady sings, so I could have him in pergatory for
etternety as his best friend FATTYDYKE Janet chapman, I knew there was a
purpoase for this weight issue lololol
It doesn't matter what they did to you, forgive them and move on. Why
let them shut you in that closet? Open the door and let the sun shine
in.

Yep, 'bloody Maoris' is pretty much common usage. Some people don't
get to meet the nice normal ones and the phrase then unites the
disaffected 'others'. Everyone has a story. From listening to youths
at the swimming pool whose every second word is unmentionable, to
getting shoved at the mall, to seeing the small use made of traffic
laws, to attending court as a witness to being abused in your own
home, to having to listen to bull*** about treaty claims at work. I'm
sick of it to tell the honest truth.
I treat people as I find them and I hope not to find the abusive
types.
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-08 09:47:07 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sun, 8 May 2011 02:05:38 -0700 (PDT), Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by Lyn
Post by Janet
Post by Lyn
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native.  You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor.  Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu.  Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
 If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori.  I have no reason to
disbelieve him.  Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage.  Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist.  We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices.  To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life.  It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
LW
Plse be careful of who you accuse of whining about it. Most of the
people who ripped Maori off have departed these shores a long time
ago.  The rest of us are innocent.
I am born in the UK came to NZ in 75 as dad was shoulder tapped for a
position in NP but I have had dual citizenship, and I have noticed, people
ofc his sort of age froup late sixties early seventies  will be watching
say Crime Watch and think nothing of saying "bloody Maoris" when the truth
is it is "some Maoris" but never utter the words "Bloody white people" who
are just as bad or worse than Maori offenders. I hear mcich less of it in
my sort of area, ealry 40s to early 50's, is it a generational thing or am
I  just not hangaing out with racists, ooops tel a lie, did know one woman
who did it all the time,  but she was evil and I am just waiting or hrt yo
die after 4 heart attacks already so I can go to funeraol and see who didnt
turn up, then piss and dance on her grave, she got me in the shit so badly
by lying, I was banned from the funeral of one of my closest friends.  I
have two bames I have given my old lady to keep an eye out for in the
hatches matches and despachest (no glasses cant see or spell properly) in
the paper, he name and the name of a rapist I know, and biy am I looking
forward to that  especially, the latter one because as we all know the shor
isn t over till the fat lady sings, so I could have him in pergatory for
etternety as his best friend FATTYDYKE Janet chapman, I knew there was a
purpoase for this weight issue lololol
It doesn't matter what they did to you, forgive them and move on. Why
let them shut you in that closet? Open the door and let the sun shine
in.
As I have said many times in the past, that if she wants to make a full and
frank apology I am more than willing to consider it for a few weeks before
deciding whether to accept it or not.
I can't be more fair than that after all the abuse she has apparently piled on
me.
I don't read her posts unless someone else reposts them but a few weeks ago
there were 3,400 posts since October 2010 that she had made to me without me
replying directly to even one post.
Aren't normal people supposed to give up after being ignored for a few days or
weeks?
I have been trying to ignore her since 1992.
And some people have accused me of being paranoid or narcissistic.
Post by Lyn
Yep, 'bloody Maoris' is pretty much common usage. Some people don't
get to meet the nice normal ones and the phrase then unites the
disaffected 'others'. Everyone has a story. From listening to youths
at the swimming pool whose every second word is unmentionable, to
getting shoved at the mall, to seeing the small use made of traffic
laws, to attending court as a witness to being abused in your own
home, to having to listen to bull*** about treaty claims at work. I'm
sick of it to tell the honest truth.
I treat people as I find them and I hope not to find the abusive
types.
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WorkHard
2011-05-08 11:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
I have been trying to ignore her since 1992.
Not very successfully. You are a FAILURE!

So why not just shut your face about it for a change?
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-08 23:36:08 UTC
Permalink
On , , Sun, 8 May 2011 23:23:12 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Msgr Scooter
I have been trying to ignore her since 1992.
Not very successfully. You are a FAILURE!
Out of over 3,400 messages in the last six months, for me to have only
retaliated a few times is damn good, you are unable to resist posting garbage
back to people who poke you with pointed sticks, you come out like a puppet on a
string EVERY time.
Post by WorkHard
So why not just shut your face about it for a change?
Why don't you crawl back into your hole Bilderbeck?
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WorkHard
2011-05-09 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Sun, 8 May 2011 23:23:12 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of
ignorance out there. People don't understand.", "WorkHard"
Post by WorkHard
Post by Msgr Scooter
I have been trying to ignore her since 1992.
Not very successfully. You are a FAILURE!
Out of over 3,400 messages in the last six months, for me to
have only
retaliated a few times is damn good, you are unable to resist
posting
garbage back to people who poke you with pointed sticks, you
come out
like a puppet on a string EVERY time.
See? You just go on and on. While making false claims about
trying to ignore her.

Your obsession and craving for attention just keeps rearing its
very ugly head. You can't help yourself.

Everything you say contradicts your actions.
John Cawston
2011-05-07 21:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native. You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor. Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu. Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Which is why I went to some pains to point out that a claim to be Maori
isn't.. cannot be based on the amount of Maori blood.. the claim rests
on culture, or as you say ancestry and inheritance.
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
To the amusement of some our Maori acquaintances. Pakeha spent a century
trying to "assimilate" Maori, but today Maori are more successfully
assimilating Pakeha! The 600,000 people who have ticked the Maori box in
the Census are just those who were interested enough to do so, there may
be a hell of a lot more who could have done so.
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori. I have no reason to
disbelieve him. Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage. Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
No problem. We have first cousins who live there, we have the odd family
get together out there.

However, on the matter of blood you would have been on stronger grounds
by challenging me "But how can you know?", and that would have been fair.
In fact, if you check a hundred Google pages you'll find the most
generous assessments come from Brash.. quoting anthropologists that the
last full blooded South Is Maori died in 1900 and by 2000 in the North
Is, and Michael Basset stating an end date of 1987. That would tie in
with skull measurements Sir Peter Buck did on returned WW1 supposedly FB
Maori soldiers.

But for practical purposes its fair to say that the time when Maori
could claim "Maoriness" by blood is long gone and all questions about
this are almost invariably responded to by saying its racist to do so,
followed by the equally inevitable statements that such claims rest on
ancestry, inheritance, culture, way of life and "feeling" Maori.. its
on this hopelessly inadequate basis that we spent up to $600 million per
year on the failing Maori language Commission and billions more on
social issues.

For example we are bombarded about Maori "poverty" when we know that our
poverty level at 12% is a shade below the OECD average.. that equates to
about 516,000 people or not far off the total number of people who claim
Maori ancestry, and is twice the number of those who vote on the Maori
roll.. are we really saying that nearly all Maori are poor and virtually
all Pakeha are at least somewhat richer? I only have to look at the
wife's relatives to put the lie to that.. the truth is Govts forever
have created a huge pool of poorly targeted money towards "Maori" issues
when in fact well over 80% are fully employed, have stable homes and
lives and are getting on quite successfully with life. What seems to be
a Maori issue is usually one of demographics, ie the median age there is
23 compared to Europeans 38.

I think we are over treating Maori and under treating youth.. for
instance, at a time when more Maori enter the schools the teachers are
now 60% 40 and older at primary school and 65% 40 and older at
secondary, that is, approaching double the age of the parents.
Post by Lyndon Watson
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist. We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices. To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
And give ACT its due, it recognised this in its opposition to Labour's
Foreshore and Seabed Act, it hung its opposition to the Act on the basis
of potential property rights being extinguished.
Post by Lyndon Watson
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life. It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
And thats entirely to be expected when we have such poor targeting of
money and dialogue to woolly and even racist Govt attitudes.

*Maori are not universally poor and programmes should not be racially
directed as if they were..
*Maori are not universally crime ridden when adjusted for age and when
senior police officers in BoP, East Coast and Northland insist the
problem lies with certain extended *families*.. just like it was with
certain Pakeha families of our youth.
*Maori will not, in the main, benefit from successful land claims.

JC
Post by Lyndon Watson
LW
WD
2011-05-08 00:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native.  You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor.  Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu.  Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Which is why I went to some pains to point out that a claim to be Maori
isn't.. cannot be based on the amount of Maori blood.. the claim rests
on culture, or as you say ancestry and inheritance.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
  If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
To the amusement of some our Maori acquaintances. Pakeha spent a century
trying to "assimilate" Maori, but today Maori are more successfully
assimilating Pakeha! The 600,000 people who have ticked the Maori box in
the Census are just those who were interested enough to do so, there may
be a hell of a lot more who could have done so.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori.  I have no reason to
disbelieve him.  Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage.  Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
No problem. We have first cousins who live there, we have the odd family
get together out there.
However, on the matter of blood you would have been on stronger grounds
by challenging me "But how can you know?", and that would have been fair.
In fact, if you check a hundred Google pages you'll find the most
generous assessments come from Brash.. quoting anthropologists that the
last full blooded South Is Maori died in 1900 and by 2000 in the North
Is, and  Michael Basset stating an end date of 1987. That would tie in
with skull measurements Sir Peter Buck did on returned WW1 supposedly FB
Maori soldiers.
But for practical purposes its fair to say that  the time when Maori
could claim "Maoriness" by blood is long gone and all questions about
this are almost invariably responded to by saying its racist to do so,
followed by the equally inevitable statements that such claims rest on
ancestry, inheritance,  culture, way of life and "feeling" Maori.. its
on this hopelessly inadequate basis that we spent up to $600 million per
year on the failing Maori language Commission and billions more on
social issues.
For example we are bombarded about Maori "poverty" when we know that our
poverty level at 12% is a shade below the OECD average.. that equates to
about 516,000 people or not far off the total number of people who claim
Maori ancestry, and is twice the number of those who vote on the Maori
roll.. are we really saying that nearly all Maori are poor and virtually
all Pakeha are at least somewhat richer? I only have to look at the
wife's relatives to put the lie to that.. the truth is Govts forever
have created a huge pool of poorly targeted money towards "Maori" issues
when in fact well over 80% are fully employed, have stable homes and
lives and are getting on quite successfully with life. What seems to be
a Maori issue is usually one of demographics, ie the median age there is
23 compared to Europeans 38.
I think we are over treating Maori and under treating youth.. for
instance, at a time when more Maori enter the schools the teachers are
now 60% 40 and older at primary school and 65% 40 and older at
secondary, that is, approaching double the age of the parents.
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist.  We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices.  To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
And give ACT its due, it recognised this in its opposition to Labour's
Foreshore and Seabed Act, it hung its opposition to the Act on the basis
of potential  property rights being extinguished.
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life.  It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
And thats entirely to be expected when we have such poor targeting of
money and dialogue to woolly and even racist Govt attitudes.
*Maori are not universally poor and programmes should not be racially
directed as if they were..
*Maori are not universally crime ridden when adjusted for age and when
senior police officers in BoP, East Coast and Northland insist the
problem lies with certain extended *families*.. just like it was with
certain Pakeha families of our youth.
*Maori will not, in the main, benefit from successful land claims.
Hear, hear.


While I do not necessarily oppose land claims and government
settlements, it does appear to me that such injustices are largely and
increasingly irrelevant to people today. For people my age
especially, we have grown up in a largely integrated society where we
all have access to the same government services and we are descended
from both Europeans and Maori. No young Maori, and many not so young
Maori, can legitimately stand up and say they didn't get ahead or were
adversely affected because of historical abuses by European settlers.
If someone is half Maori do they complain that their Maori ancestors
were abused or do they "whinge" that they are having to pay for the
wrongs of their European ancestors?



Weihana.
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-08 05:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cawston
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
No, anyone born in New Zealand is a native. You only need to listen
to the way the words are used to realise that the set of indigenous
people is smaller than the set of native people.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.
In common Maori usage and in legal usage, to be Maori is to be a
member of an iwi, i.e. to be known to be a descendant of pre-European
tribal ancestor. Such a person is Maori regardless of the colour of
his or her skin, as you would see in any gathering, for instance, of
Ngai Tahu. Disappointing for the racists, I know, but it has nothing
to do with being white or brown or whatever physical characteristics
you have fastened on.
So Maori claims are not based on being a member of some racially-
defined group, but on ancestry and inheritance.
Which is why I went to some pains to point out that a claim to be Maori
isn't.. cannot be based on the amount of Maori blood.. the claim rests
on culture, or as you say ancestry and inheritance.
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.
And the corollary is that just about everyone will have some Maori
ancestry, i.e. will be Maori.
To the amusement of some our Maori acquaintances. Pakeha spent a century
trying to "assimilate" Maori, but today Maori are more successfully
assimilating Pakeha! The 600,000 people who have ticked the Maori box in
the Census are just those who were interested enough to do so, there may
be a hell of a lot more who could have done so.
Post by Lyndon Watson
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
Post by Roger Dewhurst
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
When we are all Maori, it won't matter.
Post by John Cawston
Post by JohnO
Post by R***@hotmail.com
Post by JohnO
I doubt there are any 100% Maori in the previous generation therefore
unlikely to be any 50% Maori in the current generation.
I suspect you are wrong - there are likely to still be people alive
who are by any definition '100% Maori", and that there will be people
more than "50% Maori" - again by any definition - in the next
generation.
100% Maori would mean no non Maori ancestors since the canoe arrived.
Very unlikely. That first non 100% offspring is only 50%.
There's some information around that the last full blood Maori died at
the beginning of the 20th century. A decade or so ago Waikato Maori
trotted out an old lady who was supposed to be full blood.. her surname
was Leonard.
Back in the 60's I had a friend, a fellow law student from an Arawa
tribe, I think, who claimed to be 100% Maori. I have no reason to
disbelieve him. Among my own relations, there were full-blooded Nga
Puhi Maories up to my grandparents' generation, so it is not so hard
to believe that in less pakeha-friendly tribes some families have
avoided intermarriage. Have a look around the Tuhoe valleys in the
Eastern Bay of Plenty, if they'll let you.
No problem. We have first cousins who live there, we have the odd family
get together out there.
However, on the matter of blood you would have been on stronger grounds
by challenging me "But how can you know?", and that would have been fair.
In fact, if you check a hundred Google pages you'll find the most
generous assessments come from Brash.. quoting anthropologists that the
last full blooded South Is Maori died in 1900 and by 2000 in the North
Is, and Michael Basset stating an end date of 1987. That would tie in
with skull measurements Sir Peter Buck did on returned WW1 supposedly FB
Maori soldiers.
But for practical purposes its fair to say that the time when Maori
could claim "Maoriness" by blood is long gone and all questions about
this are almost invariably responded to by saying its racist to do so,
followed by the equally inevitable statements that such claims rest on
ancestry, inheritance, culture, way of life and "feeling" Maori.. its
on this hopelessly inadequate basis that we spent up to $600 million per
year on the failing Maori language Commission and billions more on
social issues.
For example we are bombarded about Maori "poverty" when we know that our
poverty level at 12% is a shade below the OECD average.. that equates to
about 516,000 people or not far off the total number of people who claim
Maori ancestry, and is twice the number of those who vote on the Maori
roll.. are we really saying that nearly all Maori are poor and virtually
all Pakeha are at least somewhat richer? I only have to look at the
wife's relatives to put the lie to that.. the truth is Govts forever
have created a huge pool of poorly targeted money towards "Maori" issues
when in fact well over 80% are fully employed, have stable homes and
lives and are getting on quite successfully with life. What seems to be
a Maori issue is usually one of demographics, ie the median age there is
23 compared to Europeans 38.
I think we are over treating Maori and under treating youth.. for
instance, at a time when more Maori enter the schools the teachers are
now 60% 40 and older at primary school and 65% 40 and older at
secondary, that is, approaching double the age of the parents.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10724096
Post by John Cawston
Post by Lyndon Watson
These complaints about Maories getting special treatment etc are
fundamentally racist. We recognize Pakeha customs relating to
inheritance and claims relating to past injustices. To refuse to
recognize Maori claims based on injustices done to ancestors and
communal groups (hapu) that still exist is to treat Maories less well
than Pakehas.
And give ACT its due, it recognised this in its opposition to Labour's
Foreshore and Seabed Act, it hung its opposition to the Act on the basis
of potential property rights being extinguished.
Post by Lyndon Watson
The reason why it is Maories in particular who have these claims is
that it was Maories in particular who were deprived of their property
and in many cases the means to continue their way of life. It is
especially contemptible to hear the descendants of those who did the
wrongs now whining that to compensate them for the ongoing effects of
those wrongs done to their families is unfair.
And thats entirely to be expected when we have such poor targeting of
money and dialogue to woolly and even racist Govt attitudes.
*Maori are not universally poor and programmes should not be racially
directed as if they were..
*Maori are not universally crime ridden when adjusted for age and when
senior police officers in BoP, East Coast and Northland insist the
problem lies with certain extended *families*.. just like it was with
certain Pakeha families of our youth.
*Maori will not, in the main, benefit from successful land claims.
JC
Post by Lyndon Watson
LW
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10724096
WorkHard
2011-05-06 00:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-06 02:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WD
2011-05-06 04:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much
white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
"Rights" are not material things to be handed out. They are abstract
concepts which attempt to identify principles of action which lead to
desired outcomes.


Weihana.
Janet
2011-05-06 05:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by WD
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much
white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
"Rights" are not material things to be handed out. They are abstract
concepts which attempt to identify principles of action which lead to
desired outcomes.
Weihana.
Yhank god for a voice of reason, the cretin you replied to is currently
trying to impress someone but I am not sure yet, did you see his posting of
quotations when Osama was dealt to?? All peace love and mung bean farts,
then the very next post he was back to calling names and making false
accusations, but so far today he is back in nicey nicey PC mode, like you
do when you are a wanker but lovely when around the person you fancy, I
have not seen any new posters he would be interested in, no young children
or males, oh wait a minute, got an idea now :)
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
WorkHard
2011-05-06 04:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of
ignorance out there. People don't understand.", "WorkHard"
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip
and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious
and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Nature.
Post by Msgr Scooter
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
No one hands them out. No one can magically give someone some
special right. All humans can do is deliberately oppress people
and prevent them exercising their natural rights.
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-06 09:05:46 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 16:58:22 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of
ignorance out there. People don't understand.", "WorkHard"
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip
and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious
and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Nature.
Post by Msgr Scooter
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
No one hands them out. No one can magically give someone some
special right. All humans can do is deliberately oppress people
and prevent them exercising their natural rights.
Who is going to enforce them?
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WorkHard
2011-05-06 10:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 16:58:22 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of
ignorance out there. People don't understand.", "WorkHard"
Post by WorkHard
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 6 May 2011 12:24:13 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of
ignorance out there. People don't understand.", "WorkHard"
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81%
said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into
the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand
is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited
racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights"
but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for
Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated,
so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is
total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time
and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was
appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How
much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how
many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people
with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes,
or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to
maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share
equal
rights.
Where do these rights come from?
Nature.
Post by Msgr Scooter
Who owns them in the first place and how are they handed out?
No one hands them out. No one can magically give someone some
special right. All humans can do is deliberately oppress
people
and prevent them exercising their natural rights.
Who is going to enforce them?
Enforce? That's the wrong word. Protect is the correct word.
Enkidu
2011-05-07 01:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
No one hands them out. No one can magically give someone some
special right. All humans can do is deliberately oppress people and
prevent them exercising their natural rights.
There are no such things as 'natural rights'. The natural state of a
human being is to be an oppressor or to be oppressed.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
Roger Dewhurst
2011-05-06 21:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?

R

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
Newsman
2011-05-06 21:56:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:26:45 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
One man's rights are another man's burden.
WorkHard
2011-05-07 09:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:26:45 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81%
said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip
and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious
and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited
racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights"
but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated,
so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time
and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was
appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes,
or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share
equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
One man's rights are another man's burden.
Not really. Noy inalienable rights, anyway.

But, yes, the sort of bogus rights governments create do indeed
mean someone has those "rights" but someone else has to cough up
to pay for them.

For example - the right to be a sound engineer for NZSO and have
taxpayers pay for your survival because you can't compete in the
'real' world.
Newsman
2011-05-07 12:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:26:45 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81%
said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited
racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights"
but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated,
so
what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time
and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was
appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes,
or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share
equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
One man's rights are another man's burden.
Not really. Noy inalienable rights, anyway.
But, yes, the sort of bogus rights governments create do indeed
mean someone has those "rights" but someone else has to cough up
to pay for them.
For example - the right to be a sound engineer for NZSO and have
taxpayers pay for your survival because you can't compete in the
'real' world.
Irrespective of my clients' status or funding, I contract to any who
may need me for the services I can provide, and that is exactly as it
should be. State or private - I have worked for both - I have never
needed to compete. However, to indulge your vacuous noise:

1. As far as I know, no one has any automatic right to work for any
organisation, whether state or private.

2. As far as I know, everyone has the right freely to negotiate a
contract between himself and a client, be that client the state or
privately owned.

3. Every NZ taxpayer has the right to whinge to the government of the
day in an attempt to influence it's policies towards the continuation
ro cessation of any state-funded service operating under the auspices
of that same government.

So, since you're plainly having no luck with me (Hint: look up the
meaning of 'impervious'), you now know where best to direct your
mindless, envious boorishness, don't you?

Good luck, and do let me know how you get on, won't you?
R***@hotmail.com
2011-05-06 23:31:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 May 2011 09:26:45 +1200, Roger Dewhurst
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
R
Pretty much we do - can you think of any examples of where we don't?

The dog-whislte politics of the far right of course do incite
prejudice against the 'underclass" (to use Key's term) and
beneficiaries (it is of course all their fault - all they have to do
is get a job!).
You appear to need an adjustment to your set-up, Roger - I would not
normally expect this line to appear in a reply.
Enkidu
2011-05-07 01:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
We don't 'share equal rights' because there is no such thing as rights.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
WorkHard
2011-05-07 09:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip
and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious
and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is,
ipso
facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand."
(Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and
patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different
from
any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for
confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori?
There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are
equal.
Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much
white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the
same in
each case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how
many
maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many
will
there be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with
more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or
even
now, is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris
and
non-maoris?
That's all irrelevant. We are ALL human beings and share equal
rights.
Perhaps we should but do we in fact?
Yes. BUT... the government denies us our rights while allowing
them to others. Or, they "invent" bogus rights and deny most
people those so-called rights.

I'm really talking about inalienable rights. Some mistakenly call
them "human rights".
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-06 02:48:06 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?
If the Maori people people accept someone as a Maori then they are a Maori.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
How much white ancestry is required to be white?
If you consider yourself to be white then you are. It isn't some kind of secret
society where you have cut your wrists and smear blood together to join.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Surely the answer is the same in each case, 50% or more.
You are harking back to the Jim Crow laws, where if you had any black blood, you
were black and couldn't be anything else.
Your beliefs are quite acceptable to the England where you came from but they
sure as hell aren't here.
We don't like poms who come here and tell us how to do things or try and tell us
how to live.
If you don't like it, rather than try and change things, go back to England.
You'll be welcomed by your own kind there.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WD
2011-05-06 04:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  
If the Maori people people accept someone as a Maori then they are a Maori.
How much white ancestry is required to be white?  
If you consider yourself to be white then you are. It isn't some kind of secret
society where you have cut your wrists and smear blood together to join.
So if I consider myself a Chinese-Persian-African-Phillipino then I
am? What nonsense.

snip


Weihana.
Lyn
2011-05-06 05:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by WD
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  
If the Maori people people accept someone as a Maori then they are a Maori.
How much white ancestry is required to be white?  
If you consider yourself to be white then you are. It isn't some kind of secret
society where you have cut your wrists and smear blood together to join.
So if I consider myself a Chinese-Persian-African-Phillipino then I
am?  What nonsense.
snip
Weihana.
Its the governments nonsense, not ours.
Janet
2011-05-06 05:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by WD
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  
If the Maori people people accept someone as a Maori then they are a Maori.
How much white ancestry is required to be white?  
If you consider yourself to be white then you are. It isn't some kind of secret
society where you have cut your wrists and smear blood together to join.
So if I consider myself a Chinese-Persian-African-Phillipino then I
am? What nonsense.
snip
Weihana.
Me thinks he is in love, or at least has a crush on someone because he is
trying to come accross as Mr Nice and Mr Politically Correct, It took me a
while to work out which new male poster had grabbed his attention and I
have it down to two, anyone else wanna put money on it lolol
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-06 09:07:07 UTC
Permalink
On , , Thu, 5 May 2011 21:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WD
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  
If the Maori people people accept someone as a Maori then they are a Maori.
How much white ancestry is required to be white?  
If you consider yourself to be white then you are. It isn't some kind of secret
society where you have cut your wrists and smear blood together to join.
So if I consider myself a Chinese-Persian-African-Phillipino then I
am? What nonsense.
If all those people accept you and you live as they do or with them then you are
one of them.
Too complicated for you?
No way to make money out it?
Too bad.
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
Msgr Scooter
2011-05-06 02:49:02 UTC
Permalink
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
I forgot to say, you might want to become a skinhead or join a white power
group. They hold the same views as you do.
Post by Roger Dewhurst
R
--
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Anatole France.
WD
2011-05-06 04:23:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
snip

With the passage of time people with more than 50%
Post by Msgr Scooter
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
I forgot to say, you might want to become a skinhead or join a white power
group. They hold the same views as you do.
If skinheads and/or "white power" believe the law should apply equally
to all races/ethnicities then what is the problem?


Weihana.
Janet
2011-05-06 05:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Msgr Scooter
On , , Fri, 06 May 2011 11:29:57 +1200, Re: "There's a lot of ignorance out
snip
With the passage of time people with more than 50%
Post by Msgr Scooter
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
I forgot to say, you might want to become a skinhead or join a white power
group. They hold the same views as you do.
If skinheads and/or "white power" believe the law should apply equally
to all races/ethnicities then what is the problem?
Weihana.
And they hate gays also, just like Mr Nice so maybe he is to be exposed for
the fraud he is playing out today lol
--
"I don't have to "try" Richard, nastiness and offensiveness
comes naturally to me. I actually have to concentrate and try
not to post that stuff on a continuous basis." Mgr Scooter (aka
Gwegory Bwuce Dowle) 1st February 2011 1304 hours
Enkidu
2011-05-06 09:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy
Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori? How much white
ancestry is required to be white? Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more. If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here? With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years? With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist. When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
How do you define Maori Ancestry? In one definition only 1 Maori in your
forefathers would give you Maori ancestry. Eventually most people would
be able to claim at least some Maori ancestry.

If you mean genetically, then those with at least some Maori genes will
increase to nearly 100% albeit diluted to almost zero in most cases.
There will be a few who have almost 100% Maori genes too, because two
individuals with *some* Maori genes have a chance of creating a child
with *more* Maori genes than the parents. That ignores immigration and
Maori flight overseas of course. But in any case, eventually one won't
be able to tell someone with Maori genes from someone without them,
provided that their family has been in the country for a few generation.

Cheers,

Cliff
--
The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
Mo
2011-05-06 20:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by WorkHard
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said
they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the
routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place.
There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment
"process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
Jackson is a wanker. He claims Maori have "Maori rights" but
refuses to state what they are or how they are different from any
other individual's rights.
And what does "a special place" actually mean?
Fair enough that property rights should be upheld for confiscated
land and recompense paid... but why is that only for Maori? There
are plenty of "Europeans" that have had land confiscated, so what
about them?
We are not all "one people'. But we are all people - human
beings - and as such naturally inherit rights that are equal. Ie,
we ALL have the exact same rights.
But this nonsense about "special rights" for Maori is total
bunkum.
It's not nice seeing these radicals get so much air-time and
attention from the media.
And Sainsbury is a total fuckwit, too. His handling of the
so-called "debate" between Brash and Harawira was appalling.
How much maori ancestry is required to be a maori?  How much white
ancestry is required to be white?  Surely the answer is the same in each
case, 50% or more.  If 50% is to be the criterion how many maoris are
there here?  With intermarriage increasingly common how many will there
be in 100 years?  With the passage of time people with more than 50%
maori ancestry will cease to exist.  When that time comes, or even now,
is it sensible to have different laws applied to maoris and non-maoris?
R
Your complete and total ignorance continues to impress.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2011-05-06 02:27:49 UTC
Permalink
On May 6, 10:24 am, "WorkHard" <***@workhard.org> wrote:
[snip]
Sainsbury[s] handling of the so-called "debate" between
Brash and Harawira was appalling.
You're not wrong there. I caught a bit, and it seemed like a handbag
slap-fest over what the fishmongers wife said.
Lyn
2011-05-06 00:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
It's all totally confusing.
Q. How are Maori special?
A. They lived in NZ for some years before other peoples arrived.

Q. How did they organize land ownership?
A. Some land was held permanently by some Maori subgroups, other land
was fluid depending on who was in occupation. But all parcels of land
were held in common.

Q. How many other people arrived in New Zealand before the Treaty.
A. About 1500, some of whom lived here from 1800 and purchased or
leased land from local Maori.

Q. Who were the land sharks.
A. Some people, seeing that a treaty was coming 1837 -39 (after the
British reluctantly agreed to take over), came specifically to put
their mark on large sections of land, hoping that when legal
proceedings started up, they would instantly be legal landlords of
huge holdings.

Q. After the Treaty, who was in ownership of the land
A. Maori and the Crown. (All other peoples' land holdings were
confiscated).

Q. How did other people get their land back.
A. By attending court and proving ownership. (Approved of groups ie.,
religious, upper crust, didn't have to try very hard to do this). Land
sharks with legal and monetary clout did quite well. All others (lower
class labouring types), did not.

Q. How did Maori react to this new system.
A. The arguments started and are still ongoing about which groups
owned which pieces of land. Knowing that the quickest way to obtaining
currency and goods was to sell land, individual Maori sometimes sold
land without the permission of the group. Individuals and groups did
not know how to handle the new riches and often blew the lot in a
short time.

Q. Who purchased land from Maori after the Treaty.
A. Only the govt had this right.

Q. What did the crown do with its land holdings.
A. Sold to individuals and Trusts and so raised money for government
infrastructure. (The British govt didn't want NZ to be a drain on its
finances).

Q. How did NZ develop financially to be what it is today.
A. On the backs of the lower class workers who arrived in the hope
that they might become land owners (and some of them did, but many
went broke).

Q. Who benefited the most from the transactions.
A. The monied class from Britain who employed local backs to do the
work.

Q. Why are the lower class ordinary blokes and blokeeses made to carry
the load through increased taxation for Maori land claims today, let
alone the guilt.
A. You don't think the monied class would, do you, really??
WorkHard
2011-05-06 02:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lyn
Post by Newsman
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment
industry?
It's all totally confusing.
Q. How are Maori special?
A. They lived in NZ for some years before other peoples
arrived.
WRONG! They are not hundreds of years old. ALL Maori living here
today were born here and have never lived here for "some years
before other peoples arrived".
Post by Lyn
Q. How did they organize land ownership?
A. Some land was held permanently by some Maori subgroups,
other land
was fluid depending on who was in occupation. But all parcels
of land
were held in common.
They never had a concept of land "ownership".
oiltroll
2011-05-06 07:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
That's stupid, Maori are essential to brand NZ as a tourist destination.
Another of those stupid editorials that try to create unnecessary
friction to sell copy.
Post by Newsman
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism. Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
We're all indigenous to this planet and our culture can travel
across the seas, around the world, and I don't see how that
makes us any less indigenous. It would be insane for someone
to say that because the most advanced transport technology
they have is a horse that they then deserve a pat on the back.
Post by Newsman
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
Maori have the same rights as British citizens who claim customary
title. Like any Scottish Clan, etc. As such they have been discriminated
and dispossessed, and that is being rectified.
Post by Newsman
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment "process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Maori are standing up for their rights and winning, of course
the hollow will think their was a vote in 'drawing a line'.
Boppy
2011-05-06 07:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newsman
Of the c40,000 who voted in a TVNZ poll yesterday, 81% said they don't
think Maori hold a special place, while 19% said they do.
(The preceding studio discussion - much of which was flip and
transparently insincere - had quickly degenerated into the routine
argument for "indigenous" maori exceptionalism.  Specious and
redundant, of course, since anyone born in New Zealand is, ipso facto,
indigenous.)
"It shows we've got to get an education process in place. There's a
lot of ignorance out there. People don't understand." (Willy Jackson)
(And who, exactly, will pay for this new enlightenment "process" to be
"put in place", I wonder?)
Is Jackson right, or is he simply a plausible and patronising
propagandist for a hollow and discredited racial-preferment industry?
Eloquent post, nicely put.

Sadly such views,which I share, are so often branded as "ignorant" by
extremists like Jackson and his ilk. Quite frankly, the only word that
I could be labelled with in this area would be "disinterested". No I
don't think Maoris hold a special place in this country. Why should
they? Do the immigrants of 1920 have greater validity than those who
arrived in 2009? No, and nor should they.

But on the subject of labels, the extremists frequently affix the
"redneck" label to those who hold views like mine and 81% of the Close
Up respondents yesterday. I find labels offensive and that particular
one is an American import that holds no relevance in our society. I'd
be interested to know what other normal kiwis would say in repsonse to
such name-calling.
Kerry
2011-05-09 07:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Well said.

Of course Maori have a special place in NZ

Maori - the people, language and culture is unique to New Zealand, it exists, and survives or becomes extinct, only within New Zealand.
WorkHard
2011-05-09 10:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Well said.
Of course Maori have a special place in NZ
Maori - the people, language and culture is unique to New
Zealand, it
exists, and survives or becomes extinct, only within New
Zealand.
Where exactly is this "special" place, then.

Longitude and latitude would be good.
misanthropic_curmudgeon
2011-05-09 11:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerry
Well said.
Of course Maori have a special place in NZ
Special means preferential for you, eh Kerry?
Post by Kerry
Maori - the people, language and culture is unique
to New Zealand, it exists, and survives or becomes
extinct, only within New Zealand.
Bollocks: half the Gold Coast is Maori

Loading...