Pita Sharples has declared that Monday's "police raids" have "set race relations in New Zealand back one-hundred years."
He says that like it's a bad thing.
Let's be honest: setting race relations "back" to where they were one-hundred years ago would be a step backwards only in time -- in many ways it would be a step forward in every other way.
One-hundred years ago race relations were in many ways superior to what they are now, and Maoridom had leaders of the likes of Apirana Ngata and Peter Buck and Maui Pomare-- true Renaissance Men who, in being respectful of the advantages of western culture and fully aware of the boons it brought, were head and shoulders above today's irrational worshippers of stone age culture and tribalism.
Unlike today's anti-colonial apologists for hatred and violence, Pomare, Buck and Ngata and their his colleagues in the Young Maori Party (which flourished in the early years of last century) advocated embracing the best of western technology, education and culture, which they saw as no threat to Maori cultural identity. According to Michael King, both Buck and Pomare believed "that the Pakeha and Western culture were to be permanent features of New Zealand life, and that the most promising future for the Maori lay in progressive adoption of Western practices, institutions and technology ... They also called for a strong degree of individualism in Maori life and the adoption of [a western] work ethic."
In his annual report for 1906, Buck argued that the time for tribalism was over: "The [Maori] communism of the past meant industry, training in arms, good physique, the sharing of the tribal burden, and the preservation of life. It was a factor in the evolution of the race. The communism of today means indolence, sloth, decay of racial vigour, the crushing of individual effort, the spreading of introduced infectious diseases and the many evils that are petrifying the Maori and preventing his advance."
Apirana Ngata too counselled Maori away from communalism towards individual responsibility; like Buck he promoted the value of western culture and education, and he warned that "welfare would be the downfall" of his people. “Look to the sun," he told Maori, "and the shadows will [be] behind you.” Writing a tribute to his old school Te Aute College, which had been instrumental in the formation of the Young Maori Party, Peter Buck observed, "We no longer have the fear of a dying race, but the great increase in the Maori race raises new problems that have to be met by sane leadership."
He was to be disappointed. Maori leadership instead became diverted by a century of Marxism and of Maoist posturing; a culture in permanent grievance mode, forever looking backward to yesterday and never towards the sunrise of a new day. Instead of sane leadership we see "professional Maoris" of the likes of Sharples and Iti and Turia and Annette Sykes for whom their race is a meal ticket and who virtually live in the shadows of the past, preferring to ride their grievance gravy train and take it and Maoridom with them to a misbegotten stone age.
If the recent raids do anything to destroy the credibility of the likes of Maori activists such as these, to show the true nature of the likes of Iti and Sykes and their fellow comrades and empower some modern-day Renaissance Men of the likes Maoridom enjoyed one-hundred years ago, then that would be a very good thing.
UPDATE: Sharples also joins his c0-leader Tariana Turia in rewriting history. Turia was rightly excoriated a few years back for talking about a non-existent "holocaust" in Taranaki, and Sharples now invokes equally fictional "atrocities committed at Parihaka -- "atrocities" which are no less mythical than the the idea that Iti is a man anything like Te Whiti. The fact is, as I'm sure Sharples knows, there were no atrocities, no killing, no Taranaki "holocaust" -- these exist only in the fevered rhetoric of these shadow dwellers.
Ironically, the other figure Sharples invokes is Te Kooti: while Sharples' claims of atrocity at Parihaka are made up from whole cloth, in declaring his admiration for Te Kooti he shows his reverence for a man who really did carry out atrocities -- hardly helping claims for Iti's peaceful intent.
In fact, it's instructive that while Ngata, Pomare and Buck are considered sell outs by today's Maori leaders, vicious murderers like Te Kooti are still revered, and stories of "atrocity" against Maori are still so calmly manufactured. It is indeed a measure of the distance we've travelled since the days of those three Renaissance Men.
41 comments:
Brilliant PC.
PC
I am interested do you have a link for your claims about no atrocities occuring at Parihaki and that stories of a holocaust were fictional. I'd be interested in this.
Matt
Matt,
1. I've yet to seen any historian bring evidence that there were atrocities. There were evictions, the justice of which can be argued about, but on its own eviction is not atrocity.
For atrocity, you have to look to people like Te Kooti and what he got up to in Poverty Bay, or Te Rauparaha and what he got up to further south.
2. If there was ever a holocaust in Taranaki, then it happened before Europeans arrived -- when Europeans arrived constant utu wars with Waikato Maoris had left the place deserted (which led to many of the problems later on).
As historian Keith Sinclair explains: "Taranaki was almost unpopulated because in the [eighteen] twenties, after many of the local Maoris had migrated [for their own safety] to Otaki and Cook's Strait, the Waikato tribes had killed or enslaved all the rest."
Those Taranaki Maoris who had fled - and who had thereby avoided being been killed, eaten or enslaved - only began to arrive back in Taranaki once it was safe to do so. What made it safe was the rule of law - the protection of individual rights that British law once did so well. The rule of law was a great gift to Taranaki Maoris; it quite literally saved their lives. One would like to think that those Taranaki Maoris alive today who are unenslaved, uneaten and flourishing under the remnants of that rule of law would sometimes give thanks to its inception.
(Ironically, Te Rauparaha having escaped the Taranaki slaughter himself went on an eighteen-year rampage that only concluded with his signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on 14 May 1840. Says historian Steven Oliver: "He believed that the treaty would guarantee him and his allies the possession of territories gained by conquest over the previous 18 years.")
Precisely define 'holocaust'.
Can any alleged NZ 'holocaust' be defined in such a way that doesn't insult Jews, Rwandans, Russians, or Cambodians?
ptegqoBradley's withering condemnation of the retrograde beliefs being tamped into the public mind by the likes of Sharples et al is refreshing.
Buck, Ngata, Pomare were men among men. The present loud and ernest crew of Maori spokespeople do not measure up to the standards set by their ancestors.
I am however, optimistic, the many quiet Maori achievers I know give me this optimism. They have not made a career out of being brown-a concept as disdainful as someone who would make their career by trumpeting the specialness of being white, black or yellow.
It's time Sharples, et al, woke up to the fact that if you deserve respect then you command it. Going bush with an assault rifle and plans for utu just does not cut it.
"...eviction is not atrocity."
The theft of Maori land at Parihaka was in itself atrocious. As a staunch defender of property rights it surprises me you would downplay this. Or perhaps you are holding to the theory that the only pre-European property rights Maori had were 'might is right' in which case Pakeha were OK to exercise the same coercion.
Parihaka was a strong well-run community with large scale cultivations of potatoes, tobacco and maize. "In 1871 Taranaki's Medical Officer described it as the cleanest, best kept pa he had visited." It was tee-total and Christian. Yes, it was a commune but it was a voluntary grouping living better than many others of the time.
Until 1500 armed constabulary smashed it, destroyed the houses, food houses and crops, forcibly dispersing the people who offered no physical resistance because they were pacifists. As I said a shameful and atrocious event.
Having said that I was on the Face Off NewstalkZB show today during which you are invited to give someone a brickbat. Mine went to Sharples for an inflammatory statement and inciting division.
Like I said, Lindsay, eviction is not atrocity.
The effect of equating the two, as Sharples has tried to do, is to minimise genuine atrocities, just as it the effect of Turia's comparison to minimise the inhuman outrage of genuine holocausts.
As I said, you can argue about the justice of the eviction at Parihaka, and there is much argument to be had on that, but you can't argue in any meaningful way that it constitutes committing "atrocities."
Lindsay, I sense PC might be angling for a technical definition of 'atrocity' here.
It is entirely on the nose to try and downplay what was certainly one of the saddest events in NZ history, if not only for showing what 'might' does in the face of passive resistance. All the more poignant now when various commentators (hint, hint) are calling into question the 'peaceful' nature of peace activism.
I too was somewhat shocked at PCs attitude towards the trampling of property rights here.
DenMT
I agree with Denmt. The raid of Taranaki was robbery and a clear breach of property rights.
"The raid of Taranaki was robbery and a clear breach of property rights."
I don't even propose to argue that at this point. The question is not whether there was robbery or breaches of property rights, but whether "atrocities" were committed.
On that neither Sharples nor yourselves nor any historian of which I'm aware has offered any evidence, and Sharples has only used the word in order to get everyone to hyperventilate. It seems he's succeeding.
Sucks how I only ever get the anonymous people agreeing with me. I promise it isn't me under a pseudonym...
Anyways, I looked up 'atrocity' in our office copy of Webster's (we don't have the Oxford here sorry, and I shan't wait until I get home) and it doesn't mention killing being a prerequisite. Rather 'an act of extreme cruelty or wickedness'.
To some people, this aptly describes the forced removal of a peaceful group of people, the theft of their land, the burning of their crops and destruction of their dwellings by a much larger force.
Others, however, prefer to describe the event as 'some evictions'.
For someone who is as susceptible to occasional fits of wild hyperbole as yourself, PC, methinks you are being a touch pernickety here, to make a fairly uncharitable point.
DenMT
If the recent raids do anything to destroy the credibility of the likes of Maori activists such as these...
I hope that happens. Though unless police and govt know something really big that we don't, the most likely outcome at this point is that NZ will be an international laughing stock.
DEFINE 'HOLOCAUST'!
The 'H' is also bandied around and it is less ambiguous than 'atrocity', which can be interpreted to include mass graves and non-lethal eviction as well as the latest Britney Spears single.
So, firstly define 'atrocity' then define 'holocaust', otherwise this thread will continue at cross-purposes.
As I said above, can you find a 'holocaust' in NZ history without gravely insulting Jews, Armenians, Cambodians, and Rwandans?
DanMT
Why do you dissemble and argue minute and abstrations instead of considering the point? What is the weakness in your make-up that causes you to play that game?
From the context of the discussion it is clear enough what PC is trying to have you understand. Eviction is serious (and he did indicate that the justification for the evictions was contestable and could be argued about) but it is not as serious as commission of atrocity.
Since people on this thread have been discussing the Holocaust and genocide (after all that's what the Mao-ri radicals are claiming occurred), then the term atrocity is being used in that context. An eviction it is not. It is far more than that. In this case the term, as used here, relates to genocide, mass killings in other words- mass killings with the purpose of wiping out a race of people). But you already knew that didn't you.
You may care to play head games, splitting definitions and using terms in the absence of consideration of context, but all you succeed in doing is demonstrating once again how entirely shallow you are. Your opinions, as you have previously been forced to admit, are baseless. Your silly word games do not undermine, let alone challenge, PC's position.
It is time for you to start acting (and thinking) with integrity and honesty. It would be a welcome change. Start by considering what PC wrote in the context he wrote it. Stop trying to stretch what he wrote into something of entirely different meaning.
LGM
Sucks how I only ever get the anonymous people agreeing with me.
I also agree with you.
I sometimes wonder if Peter clutches to Libertarianism to excuse, what I think might be slight racist tendencies.
I may be wrong, but these sorts of posts (and there are others like it) do make me think that on occasions. My apologies if this is not true.
That said, I do think the Maori Party have turned this whole police-raids episode into a race issue, when there is no evidence for that at all.
It is time for you to start acting (and thinking) with integrity and honesty.
I find Denmt one of the more sensible contributors to Te Blogowaiwai
I don't think PC is racist, though without a doubt racists are sometimes attracted to libertarianism...because in this puppet theatre rare is the individual under 40 who has any clue what liberalism really is.
I recalled that PC has blogged about his (and Libz) support for the Foreshore & Seabed issues to go thru the courts. This means that he & the Libz support the Maori efforts there. They are in line with ACT in supporting that this issue should go thru courts. So, PC is not racist, I think.
The term holocaust implies deliberate extermination of a group of people based upon a certain prerequisite, typically ethnicity but could also be education or class. The honest will know that besides Nazi Germany the term applies to the likes of Stalin's purges of the Kulaks, the Hutu massacres of the Tutsi, Pol Pot's mass execution of anyone literate, intelligent or wearing spectacles, Turkey's extermination of Armenians.
There is no denying that significant state bullying went on by British forces against Maori in the early days of colonialism - much like none should deny that Maori tribes were themselves often colonial against each other. It is the intellectual dishonesty of Marxist historians who selectively re-write history, Gramsci style, to use language to provoke and change perceptions to suit the end purpose. The end purpose of the likes of Turia et al is to proclaim Maori as victims ala central European Jews, to put treatment of Maori on a par with concentration camps, and to demonise British government actions, and by implication current living Caucasian New Zealanders, in that.
Evictions have happened throughout history, and whilst nothing excuses them, I doubt the word holocaust would have the meaning it does today had the Nazi's only expelled Jews.
It is the sort of vile "your ancestors did this, and ours suffered that, we were good yours were bad" nonsense that is meant to continue ad infinitum - and of course this typically results in the rivers of blood that the Balkans recently suffered.
I'm always intrigued though that Cambodians or Jews who went through their holocausts don't hold the chips on their shoulders that well privileged well educated Maori socialist activists have - but then claiming victimhood is an excuse for wanting to expropriate power over others and their property.
Scott.
Hope you are well.
In their colonization of New Zealand and the Chatham islands Maori DID exterminate whole peoples both against various pre-Maori peoples such as the Mori Ori and even a tribe of White people up Dargaville way and in their endless UTU savage existence of tribal war.
Peter referred to the discovery of massive mass graves from tribal wars of pre European times in Taranaki. Your definition of ‘Holocaust’ would seem to fit the circumstances.
This is the Truth that has been glossed over by a century of Anti-west anti-colonial propaganda.
Maori have not been oppressed by colonialism but saved by it and raised out of utter terror and darkness. But to get Treaty money, they must fool Kiwis into thinking Maori were Happy until the evil White man came here and murdered and raped and pillaged Maori land!
What bullshit!
The Colonization of New Zealand via the Ideas of Wakefield were the most humane ever conceived which held the inclusion and welfare of the Natives of New Zealand to be an important factor of all plans when establishing settlements and towns.
Maori in New Zealand at Waitangi gained equal British rights under the protection of the British crown. The Atrocities which occurred in America and Australia by European invaders did not happen here in New Zealand. Land confiscations by the Crown occurred in response to Maori violations of the treaty regarding British law and order as Maori autonomy was strictly restricted by the condition that their laws and customs were not to be ‘repugnant to the British crown and the principles of humanity.” (or some such clause)
New Zealand almost became a slave pen French prison colony.
The British saved Aotearoa!
The Treaty greivance Industry is a giant racist scam! (But then you knew that)
Tim Wikiriwhi
I find this whole thread ludicrous. We have Pakeha NZ making determinations on what Maori history and leadership ought to be - Ngati, Pomare are good fellas because they advocated for assimilation and Parihaka was simply an eviction. While you’re at could you lot also possibly organise a new colour scheme – red, white and black seems rather bleak in the circumstances - perhaps a nice shade of redneck.
It is Pakeha NZ that have expropriated power over Maori, and their property. And, when has victim hood ever been an empowering strength – especially in this country. Duh.
Finally, Tim Wikiborg – I am not sure whether you have been tarred with the ole brush or not but you richly deserve Pakeha adoration. Lap it up boy.
Hine Te Po
Anonn,
Who do you think 'The Pakeha' are?
Do you mean our friends and neighbors, and kinsmen?
Our Wives and Inlaws?
How have they oppressed you?
They have no need to thank me for defending their equal rights as the truth specks for them.
I cannot bare to stand with racists but prefer to stand with the truth and justice in equality.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Tim Wikiborg
You wouldn't know truth and justice if it bit you on the nono.
And stop with the friends, neighbours and countrymen emotive rhetoric - who gives a shit! Although if you had pulled out the cute fluffy animal thing I would have thought twice - before subjecting it to the hangi treatment.
Your words belie what Pakeha jurisprudence has already determined to be the truth of many Maori claims. Truth and Justice are not absolutes - such notions are not carved into the rock of the universe nor are they etched into human DNA. Like every other human endeavour – they are purely subjective in nature and fodder for the legal fraternity.
Hine Te Po
Hine Te Po,
Your own arguments, if they were the whole truth pull the flax from beneath your own feet for if jusice was as you say merely subjective, this absolute would render your own arguments that underpin your supposed Maori grievance to be mere subjectivism (which they are none the less as proven by your own lips).
The whole truth is however that under the mountains of convention involved in British law, are the great principles of Humanity that have been gleaned from the fires of human history as the battle between Freedom and tyranny has played out during the ages.
Even current events are a testimony to evils of racist politics and testify to the soundness of the Principle of equality before the Law.
The Maori separatist position is untenable on every level from a sound view of history to Moral ethics, and the Law.
I laugh that you don’t even see that Maori are right now crying out that they have been treated discriminately by the police instead of equally. They are trying to claim racial injustice upon the principle of equality today when yesterday and tomorrow they call for the racial inequality of Indigenous rights and call this inequality justice!
So Hine Stop trying to deny you are attempting to make second class citizens of your family, friends and neighbors and take ownership of the fact that treaty separatism is leading our nation to civil war.
Your last post reveals how dangerous you separatists are to civil society in that you don’t hold the lives and property of your neighbors to be sacred.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Tim Wikiborg
Absolutely all opinions are subjective, including the Maori worldview. Under the western tradition - the worthiness of one opinion over another is entirely dependent on strength of numbers only – a belief system shared by many, the overwhelming evidence, the majority vote, a democracy. Ethics and morality themselves are also subject to the same brute reality. To say otherwise is to imply a higher moral force - a god! How irrational! I personally believe in Atua – all seventy of them.
Also, the shared narratives under Te Ao Maori do not describe noble and righteous behaviour on behalf of the colonisers. However, as the collective narratives of the collective nations of people that comprise ‘Maori’ are still in the minority – the majority opinion continues to prevail.
When the minority opinion that is Te Ao Maori is afforded due consideration as writ by Te Tiriti o Waitangi – than possibly we shall experience equity amongst diverse peoples. Until that time – Pakeha NZ shall reap what they continue to sow. Now who is playing the victim.
I won’t comment further – I am about to pick up my semi-Pakeha kids in my semi-Maori automobile – darn WOF.
Na, Hine Te Po
Hine,
I Do believe in God as being the creator of the universe and mankind. I believe our absolute equality of rights is derived from him. I am a King James Bible believing Christian, which is a much more rational position than believing in Materialist evolution and that their are no moral absolutes.
As a Libertarian Christian I understand your absolute equal religious liberty and right to believe in Atua if you see fit, but not force your beliefs upon me any more than you want Christianity forced upon you. The principles of Equality and Liberty are rock solid.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Being attuned to your culture doesn't mean you have to adhere to past offences. That is voluntary. Tragedy is sexy though, admit it, most people sympathise with its morbid attraction.
Clinging to grievance adds a poignant edge, adds gravity, to a story but almost everyone in this nation could demonstrate some grave offence against their family and culture if they went back 3-4 generations if you're Irish/Scottish and only 1-2 generations if you're Cambodian/Vietnaemse/Chinese/Polish.
The BOP crowd are just lazy goofs. It's easy to blame generational failure on brit colonisation/the potato blight/the nazi invasion/the killing fields/the purge. It's much more challenging to make something bright out of a bad situation.
If the stories you're telling yourself pesist in alienating you from other humans it's time you tweaked the story.
Go ask a Vietnamese or Cambodian what the tweak is, they actually survived living-memory events.
============
You are both wrong.
Morality is an absolute. It is derived from the Nature of Man.
It is not necessary to dream a supernatural god-spirit-monster-thingy to justify an arbitrary morality (even though that's what many people do). Nor is it correct to theorise morality as necessarily subjective. While that may be so for socialists and thieves, it isn't the case for all people. Not everyone is as misgiuided or dishonest as such fools.
No god or state is necessary to form an objective, logical and absolute system of morality. Too bad you two haven't read up on some basics.
LGM
Lgm
As far as libertarianism is concerned it matters not what personal reasons you hold Libertarian principles to be valid moral absolutes but that you are prepared to voluntarily enter a social contract of equality with others irrespective of their personal beliefs as long as they respect the Contract (containing a bill of rights and other constitutional terms and conditions).
Thus I will not argue with your cheeky Randoid statements as beside being false, they are irrelevant as long as you consent to Libertarian government…that is all that really matters to me and all that you and I have the right to expect of each other.
I am very interested to hear Hine's Political philosophy regarding democracy replacing principle in ethics and that without God morality is pure fancy...She is absolutely right.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Teenaa korua, Tim and Glen
“Morality is an absolute It is derived from the nature of man.”
If morality is an absolute derived from the nature of man - than that simply proves my point. Surely the libertarian must also acknowledge - the variable nature of hu-man. Therefore Morality – from this scientifically premised definition - must be as swerving as hot air or wind. Hardly makes for a good absolute - fixed in a singular standard, or reality.
While I believe in seventy or plus Atua I am also of the opinion of a singular, and lonely Creator. While I personally avow Io-Matua-Kore - that does not mean to say I should disobey Jehovah, or ignore a Singularity. All are the possibilities – hence my position within Te Ao Maori is superior. Why would I want to give it up to appease your limited sensibilities. Haka and Puukana.
Na, Hine Te Po
Tim
Some points for you to ponder.
Firstly, I'm neither a Libertarian. You should abandon your prejudices as they mislead you.
--
The term "social contract" is a meaningless catch-all. It refers to what exactly?- everything and nothing depending on whom you are speaking with at a particular instance. Such terms are best avoided.
Anyway, how does one voluntarily sign a contract with all other people? You can't legitimately enforce a "social contract" on someone who never consented to it.
"Social contract"- a silly notion.
--
It is improper to consent to be governed. That applies to any government whether it be socialist, communist, theocratic or whatever. The legitimate task of a government (govt, unfortunate term, perhaps it should be renamed) is to protect Individual Rights- that and nothing more.
--
The main point of my previous post was that it is unecessary to invent a myth or a fairy tale about supernatural creatures (spirit-monster-ghost things) in order to derive a valid moral system. Nor does a moral system necessarily have to be subjective or arbitrary. Hence you and the person you are debating are both incorrect.
Socialist relativism and spiritual mythology are deceptive in that despite impressive claims of moral superiority they do not provide morality at all. Rather they eventually lead to its antithesis. Check your history.
Now that was what I wished to inform you of. As an intelligent man you have the choice of checking out what I've drawn your attention to (which would be the rational and logical thing to do) or denying it without understanding (which is self-deceptive). Your choice!
LGM
Anonymous
You've adopted the socialist notion of moral relativism. Broadly, it runs thus.
Individuals are supposed to be of completely & fundamentally different nature. Erroneous assumption #1.
Since they are so different they necessarily hold differing (hence relative) knowledge. In such a system knowledge is not absolute; according to such a view it can't ever be. Erroneous assumption #2.
Out comes that handy canard, "Your truth and my truth conflict but they are both true." The possibility of validating ideas by referent to reality is not seriously considered. Erroneous assumption #3.
Based on the relativist line of argument it is then concluded that morality can't be an absolute either. Erroneous assumptions allow that conclusion to be drawn. From there the rest follows.
Since there are no moral absolutes then morality comes from power- the power of the mob with the most guns. The violent "majority" rules (exactly as you claim in your previous posts).
Note how this view necessarily leads to disagreement and ultimately barbarity. It's the moral system of a criminal- the thief, the rapist, the killer.
It's also the wrong view.
---
Consider.
If the Nature of Man is such that individuals are fundamentally different (sharing no common attributes), then it would not be possible to undertake such activities as medicine or surgery (for example). For those activities to be possible it is necessary that certain fundamental properties are common across Men.
Similarly if the Nature of Man was variable, in the sense your position relies upon it to be, then communication of concepts between individuals would not be possible. Civilisation and the technology it relies on would not be possible either.
There are aspects to the Nature of Man that are common across individuals. There are fundamental attributes that are common among them. It is these one must consider when deriving a valid morality.
---
I've now bought to your attention that you and Tim are arguing false choice. You have excluded the correct alternative. You now have a choice of your own. EITHER you can deny what you've been just made aware of (a dishonest and self-deceptive action) OR you can check it out for yourself.
Do the research, I say. Unchain your mind!
LGM
Teenaa koe, LGM
My mind is completely unshackled – yours however, still appears to be attached to the philosophies of dead white men.
1.Not everyone wants to be white.
2.My worldview is fundamentally different – its not decorated white
3.What is reality – let me guess – white with pale undertones.
The spread of western tradition - its medicines, its sciences, and its matauranga (knowledge) follows closely the spread of the western tradition. Your argument ignores the separate knowledge systems, medicines and philosophies of other peoples – that are still relevant today.
I have attempted to communicate concepts within Te Ao Maori but your thinking has reduced them to a socialist monologue. Socialism was also the agenda of dead white men – not of Maori.
“There are aspects to the Nature of Man that are common across individuals.”
I wonder what those aspects might be. Obviously it cannot be physiological factors such as skin colour, or size or number of feet.
Thus we look to the intangibles – the thoughts and ideas for clues.
The Maori worldview is vastly different from a Western point of view. You argue individuality - we find such a concept strange. Are all Pakeha inherently wankers? And what parent truly believes they are separate from a child – that there are no binding attachments.
Not even the old hoary standard ‘thy shalt not kill’ has unqualified support – read the fine print.
The history of humankind is pockmarked with the clashes between moralities – the imposition of one morality, and the extinguishment of another.
As far as the human condition is concerned – there are only two absolutes worth noting – death, and taxation (dead white men can sometimes be funny).
I won't be commenting further in this thread - onto new things, other places.
Na, Hine Te Po
I appreciate the rationale behind a singlular over-arching universal deity but fail to see the plausibility of pantheons of gods linked to geographical areas.
Afterall, what is the range of Tane? Does he have power in Russia? Where in the Tasman does the Maori pantheon submit to the Australian Aboriginal system and where in the south Pacific do the South American pantheons begin to dominate?
The comments of anon above are rich with post-modern lines of thought. Ironic considering that is a Western innovation.
Also amusing is the allegation that Christianity is a 'dead white man' religion. Jesus was Jewish. The Jews ain't white!!
Also funny is the use of "white man science, knowledge, traditions" i.e. FREE SPEECH, the INTERNET and a personal COMPUTER to proclaim the folly of the 'white man'... yawn!
Oh well, I'm sure your opinions have secured a cosy government or teaching job somewhere funded by the tax-payer. Good luck to ya.
LGM
The principle of consent is fundamental to the liberty of the Individual.
A society that is not based upon consent is not a free society.
All human interaction and association ought to be voluntary!
The principle of consent also summons the principle of equality because under no other condition can consent be rationally expected from all parties.
The Justice of equality is self evident.
In a Libertarian society, it is possible for people to refuse consent and completely reject any idea of allegiance to the Libertarian constitution or officialdom, not be enrolled to vote and contribute nothing to pay the expense of the police, army, and justice system, yet as long as they do not violate the rights of any citizen, they may freely live there, hold property, and do business none the less. If they violate someone’s rights they are to be treated like any ‘enfranchised’ criminal.
As for ‘social contract’ because we don’t have a real one….A Libertarian Constitution that is, our rights and liberties are under constant attack, favoritism is auctioned every election, and taxes grow by the hour.
The Libertarian struggle is to found a society based upon a social contract voluntarily entered into by free men giving their consent to respect the equal God given inalienable rights of their neighbors’ whist pursuing their own happiness.
This is not mere Idealism. This is a very real goal thousands of Libertarians around the globe are trying to make happen and is also the legacy of the greatest of mankind throughout history.
Enlightening the masses to grant their consent to found New Freeland is the most urgent duty of all Libertarians.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Anonymous
Not only are you a socialist but a racist one as well. Oh well!
You can dress up your flavour of the month socialist rhetoric with a little ethnic sizzle but, in the end, it is what it is. What you have described is National Socialism. It's not new. It's been tried before. At least the Germans and the Italians had better dress sense than your lot.
BTW I quite enjoyed the hissy spit and run tactic. As with socialists everywhere- necessarily dishonest and cowardly when exposed.
Better put your sunglasses back on!
LGM
Hine Te Po said...
Your argument ignores the separate knowledge systems, medicines and philosophies of other peoples – that are still relevant today.
Hine, that claim is bullshit. There is no such thing as separate medicine or science for Maori or say indigenous as us Pacific Islanders. Medicine or shall I say, science is just science. There is no such thing as ethnic or indigenous science and western science. It is one thing, there is no Maori Newton Laws of Motion and Pakeha Newton Laws of Motion, Newton Laws of Motion is just basically Newton Laws of Motion. Those physical laws do not say that there are Maori, Pacific Island, or whatever version and there is a western version.
I have read the NZ Herald in the past where proponents like you have claimed that there is a separate knowledge systems for indigenous people and a different one for western culture. I say that this is bullshit.
Well said Falafulu Fisi,
The same is true of morality. there is no such thing as Maori morality and Pakiha morality. There is only the truly moral vs what is truly immoral.
eg It is an equal evil for a Maori to murder a white man as it is for a white man to murder a maori. and it matters not to the victim of theft what ethnicity the perpetrator happens to be in determining the moral gravity of the offence of the pain and suffering caused.
There is one moral Law that applies equally to all. This is self evident.
Hine first tries to excuse her racist by saying our judgments are mere subjectivism and by that token she puts her racism and indigenous rights on a moral pa with individualism and equality before the law.
But Her words are mere rhetoric.
Hine's " We find your concepts of individualism strange"...is utter crap! She simply does not wish to acknowledge that rights apply to individuals not races!
And by simply putting a coin against her car she will demonstrate she has a good grasp of private individual property rights and the ethics involved!
She chooses to ignore the justice of equality and individualism because it suits her racist agenda to do so!
Tim Wikiriwhi
Tim
Two errors of reasoning in your approach undermine the conclusions you draw (which is a shame as I would suppport a true Libertarian society).
1/. existence of a God which everyone is to worship.
2/. Existence of a social contract which everyone is to obey.
In item one the problem immediately arises that there is no such entity existant in reality. Hence the entire political system you outline fails at inception, for it cannot be justified. There is no legitimacy, especially when not all people believe in the same myths and fairy stories. Also there are people who do not believe in any of them at all.
In the second item the problem is that you will never get all people to agree to your "social contract". An example is the person you have been debating with above. Such a one will not agree to a "social contract" unless is is a National Socialist "contract" which awards special "rights" (living space etc) to those of the right ethnicity and race. Hence not all are to be treated equally
A further problem is when the spirit-monster-ghost-god thing that your corresponant posits is said to issue different rules and instructions for life than does your one. How do you know who is correct? There is no way to resolve the problem other than by force of violence.
Here is the problem of religion. Fundamentally it is arbitrary and has little to do with understanding reality or obtaining knowledge of reality.
A better way to establish a Libertarian society is to exclude religion from the derivation of the political system altogether. One must rely on a careful understanding of reality. Start with the Nature of Man and work forward from there to derive Individual Rights. Once those are properly identified and recognised, then it is possible to build a valid political system. No "social contract" is necessary- only recognition of Individual Rights.
LGM
Well LGM that Non-entity inspired Locke and Newton, and was the vindication for the American revolution, and even made you!
Yet as I said earliert because my religion is pro-freedom, I don’t need to convert you to be able to live on peaceful terms with you as long as you and agree to a Libertarian Constitution of Equality and freedom. I do need to convert you to my religion if you don’t already hold good reason for accepting the principles of Libertarianism are just.
If by your Atheism you conclude Individuals have inalienable rights... well... good for you!
We can argue about these things on soap boxes in New Freeland!
This is the very point of freedom.
With the State no longer perverting science and ethics, no longer overstepping the limits of just government, no longer imposing religious lies like evolution in schools… May the Truth in Liberty be victorious!
Tim Wikiriwhi
Tim
OK. Fair enough.
LGM
Post a Comment