Discussion:
Question of the day.
Add Reply
Tony
2021-01-02 01:42:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
John Bowes
2021-01-02 03:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
It would be interesting to see what was in the article. from my experience of the BFD though they tend to be anti Labour/Green they also tend to stick to the truth. From what i've read from the Race Relations Commissioner I find the claims a bit strong. but having said that if he did in reality make those claims he shouldn't be in the position he holds!
Gordon
2021-01-02 03:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "infomation"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.

Okay so the Listenser decided not to print the rebutal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.

It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.

Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it. Just like the
cheap off shore labour of to-day.

What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
James Christophers
2021-01-03 21:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some seem to think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.

In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them. Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial and wide-ranging, such as:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml

Within which we find the bullet-point outlining of genocide as defined by the Convention:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine." (Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians describing the past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases - all perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
Cheap offshore labour you say? OK, try this:

https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving inheritor of 4 centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
Tony
2021-01-03 22:16:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter
involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful
publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of
posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some seem to
think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all
anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.
You are entirely wrong.
This thread from the first post was about an accusation of genocide. The
Listener's failure to post a rebuttal is not and was not the main reason for
this thread but is an important commentary.
The commissioner has made an accusation that he has failed to provide evidence
for. In his position that is probably inexcusable. Nobody has demonstrated
genocide in this country, not you, not the commissioner and not the Listener.
Diverting this thread is something others have done. Semantics has not played a
part here other than by you and Rich.
Post by James Christophers
In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the
impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international
conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them.
Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine."
(Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians describing the
past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew
fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases - all
perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is
discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving inheritor of 4
centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
James Christophers
2021-01-04 00:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter
involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful
publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of
posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some seem to
think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all
anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.
You are entirely wrong. This thread from the first post was about an accusation of genocide.
Quite so. But what had the Commissioner actually intended by the use of such a word? Do you know? Does anyone? Can it in fact ever be known? Because if not, then there can be no satisfactory end to the thread and it must die for lack of any further factual sustenance.
The Listener's failure to post a rebuttal is not and was not the main reason for this thread but is an important commentary.
I certainly think a response from the Listener is required, otherwise all that remains is continuing doubt, uncertainty and unease.
The commissioner has made an accusation that he has failed to provide evidence
for. In his position that is probably inexcusable.
I think that too. Possibly Mr Moon has succumbed to the inappropriate use of what amounts a superlative, one orginally invented and exclusively reserved for the greatest all-time outrage in human history. At best careless; at worst well beyond the pale.
Nobody has demonstrated genocide in this country, not you, not the commissioner and not the Listener.
I have certainly not tried to. I offered only an article in which the term 'genocide' had been included. I specifically did not offer further comment on its content and said as much at the time (see above). This point is relevant since you have yourself made it so.

'Genocide' was a WW2 invention of language at a time when its meaning was specific and uneqivocal, self-evident and immediate; sufficently so for it to be the due-cause founding definition that underpinned the Nuremburg trials. No so much today as further development of it into more recent and broader-based international laws - especially those dealing with war crimes - makes clear.
Diverting this thread is something others have done. Semantics has not played a
part here other than by you and Rich.
Post by James Christophers
In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the
impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international
conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them.
Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine."
(Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians describing the
past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew
fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases - all
perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is
discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving inheritor of 4
centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
Tony
2021-01-04 00:38:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter
involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful
publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of
posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some seem to
think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all
anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.
You are entirely wrong. This thread from the first post was about an
accusation of genocide.
Quite so. But what had the Commissioner actually intended by the use of such
a word? Do you know? Does anyone? Can it in fact ever be known? Because if
not, then there can be no satisfactory end to the thread and it must die for
lack of any further factual sustenance.
There is no "must", that is entirely the choice of those that participate in
this forum.
Post by James Christophers
The Listener's failure to post a rebuttal is not and was not the main
reason for this thread but is an important commentary.
I certainly think a response from the Listener is required, otherwise all
that remains is continuing doubt, uncertainty and unease.
I agree.
Post by James Christophers
The commissioner has made an accusation that he has failed to provide evidence
for. In his position that is probably inexcusable.
I think that too. Possibly Mr Moon has succumbed to the inappropriate use of
what amounts a superlative, one orginally invented and exclusively reserved for
the greatest all-time outrage in human history. At best careless; at worst
well beyond the pale.
Nobody has demonstrated genocide in this country, not you, not the
commissioner and not the Listener.
I have certainly not tried to. I offered only an article in which the term
'genocide' had been included. I specifically did not offer further comment on
its content and said as much at the time (see above). This point is relevant
since you have yourself made it so.
Indeed.
Post by James Christophers
'Genocide' was a WW2 invention of language at a time when its meaning was
specific and uneqivocal, self-evident and immediate; sufficently so for it to
be the due-cause founding definition that underpinned the Nuremburg trials. No
so much today as further development of it into more recent and broader-based
international laws - especially those dealing with war crimes - makes clear.
Yes I am well aware of that. However you yourself have implied ( I believe)
that the word is a superlative; I certainly believe so and that is the basis of
my assertion that there is no such thing as pseudo genocide. Gonocide has as a
major part an intent. That is why the holocaust was genocide and that is why
nothing that heppened here is.
Post by James Christophers
Diverting this thread is something others have done. Semantics has not played a
part here other than by you and Rich.
It has solely been through the earlier discussion of the semantics of it that
Post by James Christophers
In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the
impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international
conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them.
Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
Within which we find the bullet-point outlining of genocide as defined by
the
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine."
(Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians describing the
past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew
fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases - all
perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is
discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving inheritor of 4
centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
James Christophers
2021-01-04 02:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able to read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter
involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful
publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of
posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some seem to
think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all
anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.
You are entirely wrong. This thread from the first post was about an
accusation of genocide.
Quite so. But what had the Commissioner actually intended by the use of such
a word? Do you know? Does anyone? Can it in fact ever be known? Because if
not, then there can be no satisfactory end to the thread and it must die for
lack of any further factual sustenance.
There is no "must", that is entirely the choice of those that participate in
this forum.
'...must' as in 'can surely only'. (In informal discourse, it seldom pays to adhere at all times to the strictly literal.)
Post by Tony
The Listener's failure to post a rebuttal is not and was not the main
reason for this thread but is an important commentary.
I certainly think a response from the Listener is required, otherwise all
that remains is continuing doubt, uncertainty and unease.
I agree.
The commissioner has made an accusation that he has failed to provide evidence
for. In his position that is probably inexcusable.
I think that too. Possibly Mr Moon has succumbed to the inappropriate use of
what amounts a superlative, one orginally invented and exclusively reserved for
the greatest all-time outrage in human history. At best careless; at worst
well beyond the pale.
Nobody has demonstrated genocide in this country, not you, not the
commissioner and not the Listener.
I have certainly not tried to. I offered only an article in which the term
'genocide' had been included. I specifically did not offer further comment on
its content and said as much at the time (see above). This point is relevant
since you have yourself made it so.
Indeed.
'Genocide' was a WW2 invention of language at a time when its meaning was
specific and uneqivocal, self-evident and immediate; sufficently so for it to
be the due-cause founding definition that underpinned the Nuremburg trials. No
so much today as further development of it into more recent and broader-based
international laws - especially those dealing with war crimes - makes clear.
Yes I am well aware of that. However you yourself have implied ( I believe)
that the word is a superlative.
"Superlative", yes, because I think it was originally intended to remain for all time as an indelible mark of the one unique and all-time ultimate among all crimes against humanity.


I certainly believe so and that is the basis of
Post by Tony
my assertion that there is no such thing as pseudo genocide.
That's why I took care to place the expression between quotation marks, hoping to suggest the flavour if not the actuality.
Post by Tony
Gonocide has as a
major part an intent.
I think you mean that the other way round.
Post by Tony
That is why the holocaust was genocide
Strictly speaking, it was named "genocide" after and not before the fact, the term being intentionally and uniquely self-descriptive and specific to the crime itself. No equivalent term has since replaced it, and for good reason.
Post by Tony
and that is why nothing that heppened here is.
Diverting this thread is something others have done. Semantics has not played a
part here other than by you and Rich.
It has solely been through the earlier discussion of the semantics of it that
Post by James Christophers
In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the
impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international
conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them.
Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
Within which we find the bullet-point outlining of genocide as defined by
the
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine."
(Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as 2020. It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians describing the
past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew
fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases - all
perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it into the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is
discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving inheritor of 4
centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
Tony
2021-01-04 02:32:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Gordon
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate
post
blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
First off any media is not able to publish all views on a subject, otherwise
we would have so much "information"/views that one would not be able
to
read
it all.
Okay so the Listener decided not to print the rebuttal allegedly. Now, it
would be interesting to know its reasons.
I think so, too, since on the face of it this is an important local matter
involving an unexplained silence from one of our more "serious" and thoughtful
publications. The topic actually opens on this very note but within a couple of
posts moves on to the semantics of defining 'genocide', for which some
seem
to
think the briefest of once-over-lightly treatments from Britannica is all
anyone needs to settle the question once and for all.
You are entirely wrong. This thread from the first post was about an
accusation of genocide.
Quite so. But what had the Commissioner actually intended by the use of such
a word? Do you know? Does anyone? Can it in fact ever be known? Because if
not, then there can be no satisfactory end to the thread and it must die for
lack of any further factual sustenance.
There is no "must", that is entirely the choice of those that participate in
this forum.
'...must' as in 'can surely only'. (In informal discourse, it seldom pays to
adhere at all times to the strictly literal.)
Maybe, maybe not. A matter of opinion.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
The Listener's failure to post a rebuttal is not and was not the main
reason for this thread but is an important commentary.
I certainly think a response from the Listener is required, otherwise all
that remains is continuing doubt, uncertainty and unease.
I agree.
The commissioner has made an accusation that he has failed to provide evidence
for. In his position that is probably inexcusable.
I think that too. Possibly Mr Moon has succumbed to the inappropriate use of
what amounts a superlative, one orginally invented and exclusively reserved for
the greatest all-time outrage in human history. At best careless; at worst
well beyond the pale.
Nobody has demonstrated genocide in this country, not you, not the
commissioner and not the Listener.
I have certainly not tried to. I offered only an article in which the term
'genocide' had been included. I specifically did not offer further comment on
its content and said as much at the time (see above). This point is relevant
since you have yourself made it so.
Indeed.
'Genocide' was a WW2 invention of language at a time when its meaning was
specific and uneqivocal, self-evident and immediate; sufficently so for it to
be the due-cause founding definition that underpinned the Nuremburg trials. No
so much today as further development of it into more recent and broader-based
international laws - especially those dealing with war crimes - makes clear.
Yes I am well aware of that. However you yourself have implied ( I believe)
that the word is a superlative.
"Superlative", yes, because I think it was originally intended to remain for
all time as an indelible mark of the one unique and all-time ultimate among all
crimes against humanity.
I certainly believe so and that is the basis of
Post by Tony
my assertion that there is no such thing as pseudo genocide.
That's why I took care to place the expression between quotation marks, hoping
to suggest the flavour if not the actuality.
Post by Tony
Gonocide has as a
major part an intent.
I think you mean that the other way round.
I missed out two commas.
Gonocide has, as a major part, an intent.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
That is why the holocaust was genocide
Strictly speaking, it was named "genocide" after and not before the fact, the
term being intentionally and uniquely self-descriptive and specific to the
crime itself. No equivalent term has since replaced it, and for good reason.
Post by Tony
and that is why nothing that heppened here is.
Diverting this thread is something others have done. Semantics has not played a
part here other than by you and Rich.
It has solely been through the earlier discussion of the semantics of it that
Post by James Christophers
In real life, however, international jurisprudence must nowadays embrace the
impossible complexities and consequences of past national and international
conflicts and the war crimes that may be alleged to have accompanied them.
Bare-bones Britannica must therefore yield to something rather more substantial
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml
Within which we find the bullet-point outlining of genocide as defined by
the
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Note particularly: "The intent is the most difficult element to determine."
(Britannica kindly note.)
Post by Gordon
It does anoy me when people seem to think that 1860 is the same as
2020.
It
is not alot of things have changed. What was accepted by society in 1860
is shot down in flames to-day.
Leaving aside that the Maori had many a scarp amongest their tribes,
countries who could colonised as fast as as much as they were able. Africa,
Americas, Australia, NZ, etc So while it was not terribly fair or
reasonable, it was the done thing. "Everyone" was doing it.
"The scramble for Africa" was and still is quoted by historians
describing
the
past actions of the colonist powers. Ruling potentates and petty princes grew
fat on bribes in return for land and lives and newly introduced diseases
-
all
perfectly normal, everyday transactions.
Post by Gordon
Just like the cheap off shore labour of to-day.
https://tinyurl.com/ycprhzt4
Post by Gordon
What ever happened 150 years ago is history, keeping on dragging it
into
the
present will not let us all move onto something better.
So they say but, as one Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is
discovering to his public discomfiture, even as the undeserving
inheritor
of 4
centuries-worth of garlanded wealth and privilege, "The sins of the father..."
George Black
2021-01-02 19:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
Rich80105
2021-01-02 22:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.

The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.

In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong; although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
Tony
2021-01-02 23:16:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
James Christophers
2021-01-03 01:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on his piece.

https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having (allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time. From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in the white man's pocket"? And he meant it in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)

Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Tony
2021-01-03 01:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
No thank you, there is no such notion amongst those learned enough to
understand the concept.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
Not relevant - it was not genocide.
Post by James Christophers
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown
to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time. From this it is
reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is to remind New
Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the compensation, it can
never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal and all those
"full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking noises coming from the
Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will never cease. After all,
wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably declared on RNZ more
than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in the white man's
pocket"? And he meant it in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's
called "covering all the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and
conveniently flexible abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
All off topic really.
There is no evidence of genocide, and you and Rich have not found any to pulish.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Tony
2021-01-03 01:57:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
No thank you, there is no such notion amongst those learned enough to
understand the concept.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
Not relevant - it was not genocide.
Post by James Christophers
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown
to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time. From this it is
reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is to remind New
Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the compensation, it can
never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal and all those
"full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking noises coming from the
Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will never cease. After all,
wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably declared on RNZ more
than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in the white man's
pocket"? And he meant it in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical.
It's
called "covering all the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and
conveniently flexible abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
All off topic really.
There is no evidence of genocide, and you and Rich have not found any to pulish.
Correction 'publish'.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Rich80105
2021-01-03 02:33:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having (allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
Tony
2021-01-03 03:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it). I am merely trying to
save you wasting your time.
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Rich80105
2021-01-03 08:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 21:11:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it).
Prove it then.
Post by Tony
I am merely trying to save you wasting your time.
What part of "I write to readers of nz.general." do you not
understand, Tony?
Post by Tony
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
It referred to two articles, both of which I addressed directly. Do
try to keep up, Tony.
Post by Tony
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Pot . . Kettle . . Black .....
Tony
2021-01-03 19:48:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 21:11:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
"quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the
conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it).
Prove it then.
No need, just read George's response in which he has stated you are kill filed.
He has said that more than once. Hard to accept that someone holds you in such
contempt but he clearly does and is not alone.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I am merely trying to save you wasting your time.
What part of "I write to readers of nz.general." do you not
understand, Tony?
Irrelevant. You "responded" to George.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
It referred to two articles, both of which I addressed directly. Do
try to keep up, Tony.
No you did not. That is a lie. You have failed to demonstrate any resemblance
to genocide.
That is what this thread is about, not the distracting garbage you have
attempted to use.
Do that or shut up.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Pot . . Kettle . . Black .....
I am apolitical. Clear and honest. You are biased, and dishonest.
Rich80105
2021-01-04 02:58:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:48:21 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 21:11:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post
blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
"quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the
conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it).
Prove it then.
No need, just read George's response in which he has stated you are kill filed.
He has said that more than once. Hard to accept that someone holds you in such
contempt but he clearly does and is not alone.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I am merely trying to save you wasting your time.
What part of "I write to readers of nz.general." do you not
understand, Tony?
Irrelevant. You "responded" to George.
I ''responded" to nz.general. People write ""Letters to the Editor,
hoping that they will be read by more than just the Editor!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
It referred to two articles, both of which I addressed directly. Do
try to keep up, Tony.
No you did not. That is a lie.
The two articles were those in the Listener and then in the BFD - I
referred to both of them.
Post by Tony
You have failed to demonstrate any resemblance
to genocide.
It certainly would have looked like genocide to the Maori who were
killed.
Post by Tony
That is what this thread is about, not the distracting garbage you have
attempted to use.
The thread is about the statement by the Race Relations Commissioner -
apart from teh two articles there has been little comment, adverse or
otherwise, to those comments.
Post by Tony
Do that or shut up.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Pot . . Kettle . . Black .....
I am apolitical. Clear and honest. You are biased, and dishonest.
The BFD is political - get a grip, Tony. Your view that political
opinions you agree with are not political is farcical.
John Bowes
2021-01-04 03:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:48:21 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 21:11:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations
arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post
blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to
recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further
comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and
reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the
conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your
post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it).
Prove it then.
No need, just read George's response in which he has stated you are kill filed.
He has said that more than once. Hard to accept that someone holds you in such
contempt but he clearly does and is not alone.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I am merely trying to save you wasting your time.
What part of "I write to readers of nz.general." do you not
understand, Tony?
Irrelevant. You "responded" to George.
I ''responded" to nz.general. People write ""Letters to the Editor,
hoping that they will be read by more than just the Editor!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
It referred to two articles, both of which I addressed directly. Do
try to keep up, Tony.
No you did not. That is a lie.
The two articles were those in the Listener and then in the BFD - I
referred to both of them.
Post by Tony
You have failed to demonstrate any resemblance
to genocide.
It certainly would have looked like genocide to the Maori who were
killed.
Politically coloured BULLSHIT! It would have resembled the wars they'd been fighting since they got their hands on muskets!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
That is what this thread is about, not the distracting garbage you have
attempted to use.
The thread is about the statement by the Race Relations Commissioner -
apart from teh two articles there has been little comment, adverse or
otherwise, to those comments.
Which two articles Rich? The Guardian's biased piece written by an activist and the bfd's rebutal to what was aparently said by the Race Relations commissioner. both which are inflamatory?
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do that or shut up.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Pot . . Kettle . . Black .....
I am apolitical. Clear and honest. You are biased, and dishonest.
The BFD is political - get a grip, Tony. Your view that political
opinions you agree with are not political is farcical.
Yet another lack of comprehension from a biased little political nobody! but typical of one who blindly supports a totalitarian political dogma!
Tony
2021-01-04 03:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:48:21 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 21:11:53 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations
arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post
blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
I did not refer to your typo, that is the sort of trivial silliness I leave to
others. I was referring, as I actually wrote, to your misuse of the word
genocide.
Nobody has provided evidence that genocide has ever occurred in this country
with the possible exception of the way the Moriori were treated. See
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=033e2af2dbac4cb4b72cf08f1209ebcb
for a very slightly obscure commentary.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
The idea of quasi-genocide is absurd. There is no such thing. You do not need
to understand English to follow that.
Post by Rich80105
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Irrelevant, nobody won, another absurd idea. There is no evidence of genocide.
You have still not provided any and nor has the subject of this thread (which
is entirely non-political from my perspective but possibly not yours).
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of
the
word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's
history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own
people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on
his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the
Crown
to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Wrong again. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only. The idiotic use
of an emotive word which is totally wrong in this context and in the New
Zealand context. Do try to address the topic.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing
the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having
(allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of
another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that
allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be
universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
Neither am I.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is
to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the
compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and
Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the
conscience-pricking
noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will
never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably
declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in
the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all
the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible
abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist
exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Not at all, you mentioned the BFD as a source of possible lies and you did so
with an obvious intention. It was perfectly appropriate for me to attempt to
give you some balance.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read
your
post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the
rest
here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
So what - George has kill-filed you (and you know it).
Prove it then.
No need, just read George's response in which he has stated you are kill filed.
He has said that more than once. Hard to accept that someone holds you in such
contempt but he clearly does and is not alone.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
I am merely trying to save you wasting your time.
What part of "I write to readers of nz.general." do you not
understand, Tony?
Irrelevant. You "responded" to George.
I ''responded" to nz.general. People write ""Letters to the Editor,
hoping that they will be read by more than just the Editor!
No you responded to George.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
ANywayh time for you and others to stop the diversions.
the original post pointed to an article (it matters not from where) which
stands on the facts good or bad.
It referred to two articles, both of which I addressed directly. Do
try to keep up, Tony.
No you did not. That is a lie.
The two articles were those in the Listener and then in the BFD - I
referred to both of them.
No.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You have failed to demonstrate any resemblance
to genocide.
It certainly would have looked like genocide to the Maori who were
killed.
Post by Tony
That is what this thread is about, not the distracting garbage you have
attempted to use.
The thread is about the statement by the Race Relations Commissioner -
apart from teh two articles there has been little comment, adverse or
otherwise, to those comments.
No it is about his incorrect statement that there has been genocide in this
country. Something you and he cannot sustain.
Provide evidence that supports his disgraceful statement or go away.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do that or shut up.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Do try to address that and not the political nonsense that is now in this
thread.
Pot . . Kettle . . Black .....
I am apolitical. Clear and honest. You are biased, and dishonest.
The BFD is political - get a grip, Tony. Your view that political
opinions you agree with are not political is farcical.
John Bowes
2021-01-03 10:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 2 Jan 2021 17:26:46 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
I accept that my typo of "geocide" was wrong. . . .
Post by James Christophers
In terms of the "effect" that Rich mentions, perhaps think: "quasi-genocide".
Certainly as far as some local Maori populations were concerned, there
would have been no effective difference between the "quasi-genocide"
and genocide; it is no secret that many of the European settlers and
soldiers saw it as a racial issue; and calling many of the conflicts
"war" was a convenient expresson for what was effectively violence and
murder to support similarly illegal land grabs. Semantics is
convenient to apologists for devastating violence; for those to whom
"might is right" and who do not wish to accept the innate racism that
as late as the 1940's and 1950's saw Maori as being a race that was
'deservedly' (in their superior views) dying, and therefore not
deserving support, or any attempt to honour rights that still exist
(separately from reparations for loss of property) under the terms of
the Treaty of Waitangi. But I accept that "quasi-genocide" reflects
the reality that extinction was never a stated aim by government . . .
and that the power of parliament was used to justify much of the
actions that resulted in deaths and alienation of land . . . Yes,
Tony, by all means let us carefully not use words that may offend the
side that 'won' . . .
Ever read any history about what happened in New Zealand before Maori forced the treaty on England? Quite interesting and on several occasions the word genocide could have been quite rightly applied.
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on his piece.
https://tinyurl.com/y4abbvek
Post by Tony
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
No maiden speech can change the reality of what actually happened -
your concern for tradition and protocol does not change the nature of
actions which can now be seen in the unblinkered context of history
Post by James Christophers
To me, it could be interpreted as a weasel way of imprinting and reinforcing the notion that, through a "first nation" sector of a society having (allegedly) suffered unspeakable hardships and sufferings at the hands of another (or others), that present-day New Zealanders should accord that allegedly "oppressed" sector an exclusivity and exceptionalism that shall be universally recognised as uniquely theirs for all time.
The Treaty of Waitangi does promise certain rights - I am not aware of
anyone proposing that those rights be now ignored. I am also not aware
of any push for 'exclusivity and exceptionalism'
You're not aware of a shitload of what is going on in New Zealand as usual Rich! Maybe if you got your head out of your arse and stopped reading the headlines that fit into your political compass you'd understand what is going on in the world!
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
From this it is reasonable, I think, to assume Ngawera-Packers intention is to remind New Zealanders that whatever the appeasement, whatever the compensation, it can never be enough. So no matter the Waitangi Treaty and Tribunal and all those "full and final settlements", the conscience-pricking noises coming from the Ngawera-Packer cohort and those they represent will never cease. After all, wasn't it Sir Ranganui Walker himself who so memorably declared on RNZ more than 20 years ago: "The maori will always have his hand in the white man's pocket"? And he meant it
in both the monetary sense and the metaphorical. It's called "covering all the bases" - not so far removed from that mutual and conveniently flexible abstraction, "complying with Treaty principles"(!)
Likewise, the similar - if not equivalent - parallels' with today's Zionist exceptionalisms and their now irreducible global consequences.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Which is a singularly pointless comment - an attempt to divert by "but
they all do it" or "look over there" . . .
Bullshit! It's being pointed out that your favourite sites are as biased as the ones you claim push "fake news"Rich! Get a life and admit to yourself they're just pushing crap just like you do!
Post by Rich80105
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word.
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
nz.general is not a medium for private correspondence - all posts are
open to anyone that reads the group, and all posts can be seen by all.
I write to readers of nz.general.
No rich. You lie to yourself and expect us to march in lock step with your biased and bullshit beliefs!
George Black
2021-01-03 19:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Definition or no, here's one man's considered view of this own people's history which, if he is to be believed, has involved the genocide of his own people under the authority of the British Crown. I offer no further comment on his piece.
One word. Chathams.
Were you looking for an example of genocide in New Zealand that would be it
John Bowes
2021-01-03 10:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to print the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
Funny that Rich and others ignore such noble savages as Te Rauparaha and the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama invasion of the Chatham Islands. I wonder if they'll remove all the streets and buildings named after this supplier of arms during the musket wars. But my be is as usual for snowflake Marxists like Rich it was okay for Maori to murder Maori and occupy their land but no okay for Pakeha to buy land!
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Tony
2021-01-03 19:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown
to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
Funny that Rich and others ignore such noble savages as Te Rauparaha and the
Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama invasion of the Chatham Islands. I wonder if
they'll remove all the streets and buildings named after this supplier of arms
during the musket wars. But my be is as usual for snowflake Marxists like Rich
it was okay for Maori to murder Maori and occupy their land but no okay for
Pakeha to buy land!
Rich is merely being political, as usual.
There is no evidence to suggest that Pakeha committed or even contemplated
genocide. And until he provides that he is farting into the wind, again!
Furthermore there is no similarity between The Holocaust and anything that has
ever happened in New Zealand unlike what the commissioner incorrectly said.
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Rich80105
2021-01-04 03:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:52:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
If this is factual (the article in The Listener and their refusal to
print
the
rebuttal) then we have something badly wrong in our race relations arena.
I very rarely read the BFD but was sent there by a more moderate post blog.
Post by Tony
https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/01/02/a-relations-commissioner-completely-unfit-for-purpose/
They have (unsurprisingly enough) an ...
agenda.
If they lie often enough what they do is change the opinions (never the
facts) and at some stage in the future those following are forced to recant
George, your words could appropriately apply to both the bfd and to
the Listener, albeit in different ways. Certainly there were actions
taken by the British that would be totally unacceptable today, and
which had the effect of geocide on pockets of Maori, and a lesser but
still serious detrimental effect on most Maori.
It was not genocide, a word often misused as you have done.
Try this definition, fairly representative of scholars definition of the word
"Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people
because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race."
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s maiden speech in parliament calling on the Crown
to
apologise for genocide against Maori was another example of totally misusing
the word. There is a tradition in our Parliament of not commenting on or
interruppting maiden speeches, fair enough normally but what she said was
totally wrong and disrespected our Parliament's traditions.
Funny that Rich and others ignore such noble savages as Te Rauparaha and the
NgÄ?ti Mutunga and NgÄ?ti Tama invasion of the Chatham Islands. I wonder if
they'll remove all the streets and buildings named after this supplier of arms
during the musket wars. But my be is as usual for snowflake Marxists like Rich
it was okay for Maori to murder Maori and occupy their land but no okay for
Pakeha to buy land!
Rich is merely being political, as usual.
There is no evidence to suggest that Pakeha committed or even contemplated
genocide. And until he provides that he is farting into the wind, again!
Furthermore there is no similarity between The Holocaust and anything that has
ever happened in New Zealand unlike what the commissioner incorrectly said.
The race Relations Commissioner did not make any comparison with the
Holocaust, that is your incorrect assertion.
Post by Tony
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The Listener is a commercial periodical which lives by printing
material that will attrract comment, but they will try to be
reasonably objective - the BFD lives to achieve a political agenda; it
does not pretend to be objective, or even truthful.
Nor does No Right Turn or any political blog therefore a pointless comment.
Post by Rich80105
In context, what is reported as being said by the Race Relations
Commissioner does not appear to be wrong;
Except to honest and truly caring people.
Post by Rich80105
although it is forceful
which is appropriate in making a point that many (including it appears
the BFD) do not wish to acknowledge.
There needed to be intent to destroy Maori and there is no evidence of that.
Therefore it was not genocide, merely someone deliberately using a highly
emotive and mischievous (in context) word .
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Tony
2021-01-04 03:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 13:52:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
deleted superfluos and old. Allowing you to concentrate a little.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Furthermore there is no similarity between The Holocaust and anything that has
ever happened in New Zealand unlike what the commissioner incorrectly said.
The race Relations Commissioner did not make any comparison with the
Holocaust, that is your incorrect assertion.
Yes he did. From the article that The Listener refused to publish.
"The Race Relations Commissioner decreed in your magazine, twice, that the
British colonialisation of New Zealand was a holocaust[2]. Meng Foon
categorically stated that he was comfortable with equating the NZ Maori
experience with the holocaust. Asked “are you comfortable with that?” he said,
“Yeah.” He went on to double down on that. (Listener 12-12-2020 p.34)
And further the article they refused to print includes this.
"I write on behalf of my Jewish ancestors. Why does NZ’s leading race
relations/human rights ‘expert’ dismiss the Holocaust as nothing worse than
British colonialization? By denigrating the Holocaust as nothing more than
British colonialism ‘writ large’ Commissioner Foon simply resonates with
implicit anti Semitism: “Those fucking Jews, they were treated no worse than
Maori!”

The word Holocaust describes the specific Nazi policy — the extermination of a
race. This happened in NZ? According to Mr Foon it did. He has created a new
anti-semitic myth, “Jews as exaggerators”. His reinterpretation of history will
now be on the record for future generations of New Zealanders. The holocaust
is merely British colonization.

So, I dare speak on behalf of relatives and the 6 million Jews (along with
homosexuals, Roma, the mentally disabled, etc.) who were exterminated in the
greatest outrage in human history. Their memory is excoriated[3] by the NZ Race
Relations Commissioner.

Why did the Race Relations Commissioner, a supposed expert in what words are
inappropriate and amount to being hate speech and being racially biased write
something totally offensive to Jews? And those who had their families
exterminated? Too insignificant, it would appear, compared to the political
demands. He agrees with a rewriting of history. He is obviously of the view
there was ethnic cleansing in NZ, without a shred of evidence to support such a
disturbing claim. And your magazine was happy to broadcast this perception
without any chance to try and clarify what really happened in the Holocaust.

[1] “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived
and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and repeated.” John F.
Kennedy

[2] Holocaust has a specific meaning. It does not refer to ‘progroms’ or other
types of “ethnic cleansing”, all of which are reprehensible.

This is a short synopsis of the origin and derivation of the word. “Holocaust”.
If your magazine wants further elucidation on this matter please get back to me.

“Human history has few tragedies that rival the magnitude and moral bankruptcy
of the Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish
men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its
collaborators.

In Berlin on January 20, 1942, Hitler held a conference, noting no country
wanted to accept Jews. The mass murder was the “final solution” to the
so-called Jewish question. The deliberate and systematic destruction of a group
of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race was given
a name, “genocide,”.

How did this most infamous of genocides become known as the Holocaust?

The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation ?olah,
meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in
the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination
camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open
fires.”

[3] If you excoriate someone, you let that person know that you really, really
disagree with them. This verb goes beyond mere criticism; it implies anger, a
harsh and insulting tone, and even a scathing attack."
Lots of words for you to read but do try.
Deleted old stuff

George Black
2021-01-03 19:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
By answering this I have provided George with an opportunity to read your post,
I regret that is appropriate but George is stronger than some of the rest here
and sticks to his kill filling of your posts.
Dont worry about it :)
I didn't and I wont.
The poster is a product of his time
Loading...