Still, it looks fairly interesting. I’ve seen analysis like that done before… but not in Software.

No real frustration nor angst where I am. I am too pessimistic about the planet as a whole and too much a latecomer to NZ to become excitable over the treaty or the way NZ resolves it. It affects me, and my children, but I want to let the people who’ve been living their whole lives with it work it out.

respectfully
BJ

I am (just beginning as an experiment) to apply it to the proposition “the Treaty Should Be Abolished”). It certainly seems to clarify issues. Somehow we need to develop argument mapping so that it can become a collaborative online effort.
I think the amount of frustration and angst is proprtional to the distance from the exact position in the structure of the argument.
JH

The rights were to land and treasures which would be defined in Maori terms. I should not have used the word specific, they are broadly defined. One of the things that I recall from my reading is the impression that they did pretty well out of it. However, I don’t see that as a reason to negate it. The one thing the treaty clearly does is divide the present occupants of NZ into people who are members of the signatory tribes and people who are not. This makes it almost impossible to imagine any solution that does not maintain a large advantage to the Maori gaining their support. It is impossible to accept the idea of IMPOSING a solution on them simply because there’s more of us.

I didn’t take your meaning away from what I read either. We have legitimacy provided we live on land that was legally purchased (and we’ve satisfied NZIS of course). I don’t know how a lawyer would argue either side though. It is a Gordian knot of sorts and the only question is how to cut through it.

I didn’t see any reason why a Constitution could not be attempted to resolve this. Dividing the parliament is a heckuva better deal than dividing the country or the law.

BJ

The treaty is a legally binding recognition of Maori tribes having some very specific rights.
**************
Actually the treaty isn’t “legal” until it is ratified by parliment.

The “very specific rights” has me scratching my head. Can you specify those rights eg: ownership of the Foreshore and seabed

[ * Is this debate a new issue?

No. Ever since 1840 Iwi and Hapu have claimed that the foreshore and seabed fall within the exercise of tino rangatiratanga because they are both part of the whenua. However the Crown has assumed that it has absolute ownership of it and there have been numerous Maori protests and court cases through the years.

* So it’s a Treaty issue then?

It is clearly covered as a Treaty right in Article Two which acknowledges that Iwi and Hapu have “exclusive and undisturbed possession” of lands etc.

However the Treaty merely reaffirmed a right and authority which Maori had exercised for centuries before 1840.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0307/S00029.htm

I remember you saying you spent 2 hours gazing at the treaty at Te Papa. You should perhaps have spent more time thinking about the circumstances underwhich it was drawn up. Does it float when you put it in water.
Essentially, under the treaty we have no legitimacy, but the full terms are too much in Moaris favour (”Aotearoa is Moari” …tino rangitratanga…whatever they claim is their taonga..cultural requirement). The Pakeha majority will just ignore it, try to settle treaty claims, and hope it blows over in the future. Meanwhile the culturalists are trying to grow and consolidate. Thank goodness for skeptics such as DrRata.

A constitution is a sort of refined and well thought out consensus. Skeptics will have trouble with any incorporation of tribalist (closed society thinking) in any constitution.
JH

WOBLies: “Claiming that a policy cannot be racist or elitist because at least one old black woman has been found to support it. From Marc Rogers’ WOBL = ‘Wise Old Black Lady’, describing a character common to many horror or sci-fi movies who knows everything necessary for the white heroes to move forward in the plot without dying immediately. (Michael Turyn)”

http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/ethel/atrios-dictionary.html

Errrrr, nice one JH

She got the first part of the answer OK,

1. Constitutional and political changes to re-affirm democracy.

2. A future-oriented national culture that supports democracy.

but fails IMHO, when she gets into some other specific proposals.

“
Constitutional and Political Recommendations

”

The treaty is a legally binding recognition of Maori tribes having some very specific rights. Her calling them “neo-tribes” is a clear linguistic device to try to diminish their actual identity and much of what she proposes is a clear bid to actually destroy them completely. Half right though, IMHO, because I believe that an actual Constitution might do NZ good…

and before you start in on how NZ already has one Eredwen I should remind you that it isn’t one that includes the Maori in a way that would allow the treaty to be superceded. If NZ wants to move forward with all of us united, it has to actually do something different than every other nation on the planet has done.

respectfully
BJ
I have a lot of faith in our ability to get along with each other. I have a lot less faith in our ability to do so by asking the Maori to unilaterally give up the one thing that is working in their favour in return for (several reserved words omitted here) nothing.

Just saying.

Dr. Elizabeth Rata

23 March 2004

Abstract

A ‘culturalist’ orthodoxy dominates the nation’s discussions of Maori issues, ethnic and cultural diversity, and the role of the Treaty of Waitangi.

According to supporters of culturalism, recognising the Treaty leads to justice for Maori and provides a sound foundation for New Zealand’s ethnically diverse society. I argue the opposite case claiming that culturalism leads to the establishment of pre-modern, anti-democratic conditions with serious consequences for New Zealand’s future.

http://www.anewnz.org.nz/paper_comments.asp?paperid=92
JH

May I take this chance to wish all frogs a very happy festive season and all the best for the new year.
I look forward to chatting again with you all soon.
Take care and be safe.

Big Bruv

jh : Can we baldly state where you’re coming from? That would make the discussion a lot clearer.
It seems to me that, implicitly, you argue the pakeha right to dominance through conquest. (That would be Big Bro’s position too, if he were articulate enough to put it into words.) This is a legitimate notion, you shouldn’t be afraid to state it (though perhaps you will be ashamed to state it, who knows). But it’s useful if people don’t hide behind masks, but own up to their beliefs.
===============
I’m saying that however we got here, we have a right to know what our obligations are under the treaty (as explained to BJ above), and having fully explored and understood those obligations, it is sensible to point out that, if conditions are too unfavorable people will not voluntarily comply.
============================
Alistair says:
You’ve made a useful start by raising the idea that the treaty should be broken or amended. Do you advocate that the non-Maori majority, as inheritors of the British crown, should repudiate its signature unilaterally? Or do you suggest that the two parties should renegotiate the provisions as equals?
====================================
We should get to a point where we agree on every aspect of Treaty obligations (as explained above) and then try to reach a consensus on what is reasonable and what isn’t. If Maori and Pakeha can’t agree then we simply agree to disagree, let the treaty lie and face the music.
======================================
Alistair says:
Brash and “full blooded maoris� — oh dear, you’re slipping into troll mode. If you are honest, you will acknowledge that this is pure unadulterated strawman. Nobody, as far as I know, defines “Maori� as “100% genetically pure Maori�, in fact the very notion is explicitly racist (the very notion of race is, technically, racist, because it is scientific fact that there are no distinct races within humanity). Being Maori is not a matter of “race� but of culture and inheritance. Talk of “percentage� or “racial purity� is just silliness.
=============================
My perception is that when Tariana Turia says: “we are a colonized people” she must be implying a blood line as only Maori were colonized. Other wise she would say “we are a (partly) colonized people”.
If ” Being Maori is not a matter of “raceâ€? but of culture and inheritance.” Some of that cultural influence must be Pakeha culture, yet, some Maori say: “we can’t live in your culture”
===============================
JH