Off Topic

Dear Ignorant people....

194 replies · 1,616 views
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Stefan wrote:
I dont disagree with it. But my point is that it is not a day that everybody really understands, It deserves a public holiday. But I feel that it shouldn't really be seen as a day to celebrate being a Kiwi, Because of that exact point.


But if you go the otherway you get the Cringeworthy Australia where a bunch of ill-informed bogans get hammered wearing Australian flags as capes and ignore the existance of any part of the population that isn't their dinky-die vision of Australia.

It's a short step from 'celebrating being a kiwi' to being hi-jacked by 'f**k Off we're full'.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Michael,

Do football teams just let media in to wander around or do they charge for TV rights?  Doesn't it cost this group to host these celebrations?  Time and effort for set up and hosting?

Is it wrong for them (like a football club) to try and recover some investment from TV companies who will sell advertising through the coverage that makes them hundreds of times that cost?

Stefan wrote:
Maori TV were going to be charged too I think.


Yes because they could afford it, unlike I suspect a Maori Language network based in the Bay of Island that probably support the local iwi all year, not just for one day and run on a shoestring budget.


Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
KIWI HATTER
 
 
 
Just kidding, some of my best friends are maori Welsh !
Kiwi Hatter2011-02-02 23:12:31

We're the WELLINGTON Phoenix

And this is our Home

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I am sure (well, not actually sure, but that is why I am asking this) that the Mori-Oris were the original inhabintants of NZ, and then the Maori's came over from somewhere and ate them.  Is this true or an urban myth?

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Baiter wrote:

Michael,Do football teams just let media in to wander around or do they charge for TV rights?� Doesn't it cost this group to host these celebrations?� Time and effort for set up and hosting?Is it wrong for them (like a football club) to try and recover some investment from TV companies who will sell advertising through the coverage that makes them hundreds of times that cost?
Stefan wrote:
Maori TV were going to be charged too I think.


Yes because they could afford it, unlike I suspect a Maori Language
network based in the Bay of Island that probably support the local iwi all year, not just for one day and run on a shoestring budget.


Maori tv could not justify the payment. Not sure why though.
And I heard that the Maori Language Network employs people from the iwi that owns the marae
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Stefan wrote:
Alright, thats fine. My understanding of the Treaty is limited.
You can all laugh at me, but dale was the only one who said anything. I respect that.
I didn't see anything from anyone else..[/QUOTE]
As Dan says, read a book or something.

Stefan wrote:
How much though? And what parts? The treaty prevented the sale of any land to anyone other than the crown or whatever. And Maori were happy to sell their land. I understand there were dodgy dealings after some time. [/QUOTE] Over 95% of it.  I can;t be bothered giving a full history lesson but have a read of the difference between the Maori and the English version of the treaty.

[QUOTE=Stefan]I dont disagree with it. But my point is that it is not a day that everybody really understands, It deserves a public holiday. But I feel that it shouldn't really be seen as a day to celebrate being a Kiwi, Because of that exact point.
People's knowledge of what it is about is very limited. And that crosses different generations. I think people know that it is an important part of NZ History, but they just don't really care.
Hence why this is in a thread directed at ignorant people.  Can blame the media for cover sensational parts of Waitangi and not informing people, can blame schools for not teaching it well, and you can blame yourselves for not reading up on your history.  But that would take time, and its far easier to spout ignorant points of view.

[QUOTE=Stefan] Um, plenty of non-maori own land near beaches that prevent people from going on it.  Are you equally f**ked off?
From my experiences. I have never been effected by non-maori land owners.
But yes, I am. But there is a difference between non-maori owning land near beaches, and Maori who control all of the beach, including the foreshore, beach, and land around that beach.

Do you know why they won't let people have access. There could be a number of reasons.  Perhaps they have had trouble in the past with people leaving rubbish etc and think that it isn't worth the hassle.


Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
I am sure (well, not actually sure, but that is why I am asking this) that the Mori-Oris were the original inhabintants of NZ, and then the Maori's came over from somewhere and ate them.  Is this true or an urban myth?


General consensus is that the Moriori are just a sub tribe of Maori.
2ndBest2011-02-02 23:20:00
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We were told on a few occasions up north that we were not allowed onto beaches because they were Maori owned and only for local Iwi.
The people who told us that, said that they personally didn't care if we were there or not. But others might (Guessing the Militant type ones)
On another occasion, we wanted to go for a walk in Rotorua in a part of land that was previously owned by the crown. The reason why we were not allowed to go is because the Local Iwi were building a 4X4 track to the top of the hill.
Perhaps its because the white devils leave rubbish. But I have been to a Maori Owned beach up near the Bay of Islands with a friend of mine and his family who were Maori. And that place was a sh*thole. Like Evans bay beaches.
I can safely say that (To the best of my knowledge) I have never been denied access to beaches or anything like that by non-maori land owners. The non-maori land owners we did come across, were more than happy to let us access the public land through their property.

My dad used to go tramping all over New Zealand and he took us tramping too. But he watched as some of his favorite walking tracks were closed to the public and turned into private roads or Iwi owned tourist attractions.Stefan2011-02-02 23:31:39
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
Frankie Mac wrote:
I am sure (well, not actually sure, but that is why I am asking this) that the Mori-Oris were the original inhabintants of NZ, and then the Maori's came over from somewhere and ate them.  Is this true or an urban myth?


General consensus is that the Moriori are just a sub tribe of Maori.
 
but did they eat them?  I think we have to concentrate on the facts that are interesting here people.

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Served them up as a hungi. Tumeke
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hangi*
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
Served them up as a hungi. Tumeke
Hangi.

Fuck this stupid game

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Stefan wrote:
Hangi*
 
I now make it 1-1

All I do is make the stuff I would've liked
Reference things I wanna watch, reference girls I wanna bite
Now I'm firefly like a burning kite
And yousa fake fuck like a fleshlight

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
TopLeft07 wrote:
2ndBest wrote:
Served them up as a hungi. Tumeke
Hangi.


H?ngi*

Needed more macron.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2-1 to me now  
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Baiter wrote:

Michael,Do football teams just let media in to wander around or do they charge for TV rights?� Doesn't it cost this group to host these celebrations?� Time and effort for set up and hosting?Is it wrong for them (like a football club) to try and recover some investment from TV companies who will sell advertising through the coverage that makes them hundreds of times that cost?
Stefan wrote:
Maori TV were going to be charged too I think.


Yes because they could afford it, unlike I suspect a Maori Language
network based in the Bay of Island that probably support the local iwi all year, not just for one day and run on a shoestring budget.
Yeah sure, but this also assumes the Iwi are all that poor (some of them have pretty big bank accounts you know)

However, a football game is a football game. It is not a national event. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. As I have grown older I've cared about this stuff less and less. (I use to be pretty passionate) If they want to marginalise themselves, so be it. In reality this "problem" is so insignificant with the rest of the world.Michael2011-02-03 00:07:28
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
But surely if the local Iwi spent all this money on accommodating the visitors and didn't recoup it via Kohas then that would be a hand out?  Or is it only a hand out when people wanna beat down on the poor?
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
More Winston Reids and less Police Ten 7 extras.

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Frankie Mac wrote:
I am sure (well, not actually sure, but that is why I am asking this) that the Mori-Oris were the original inhabintants of NZ, and then the Maori's came over from somewhere and ate them.  Is this true or an urban myth?
 
The Mori-Ori were effectively a Maori tribe who migrated to the Chattum Islands. When other Maori went to the Chat's years later they killed them off.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Dan at University.  Amusing.
 
Is it more amusing that I am?
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Dan at University.  Amusing.
 
Is it more amusing that I am?
Massey Wellington isn't a real university
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Stefan wrote:
I dont disagree with it. But my point is that it is not a day that everybody really understands, It deserves a public holiday. But I feel that it shouldn't really be seen as a day to celebrate being a Kiwi, Because of that exact point.


But if you go the otherway you get the Cringeworthy Australia where a bunch of ill-informed bogans get hammered wearing Australian flags as capes and ignore the existance of any part of the population that isn't their dinky-die vision of Australia.

It's a short step from 'celebrating being a kiwi' to being hi-jacked by 'f**k Off we're full'.
 
 
This!
 
The only thing that pisses me off about being Australian is other Australians who as News quite rightly called them are "ill-informed bogans".

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
This is an interesting thread.
I actually think it is tremendously sad that more people haven't read and tried to understand the treaty, because if we could actually get past all the crap and live by the principles of the thing NZ would be a pretty cool place to live. The principles being things like mutual respect, consultation, redress for past wrongs, and self governance (a bit more controversial I'll admit).
I was pretty anti-Waitangi day too until I took the time to read a bit about it.
For those wanting to do likewise this is a good place to start:
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
 
 I hate quarks - f**king stupid bits of atoms all doing stuff I don't know really what but I'm sure its bad. Get a job, quarks! OR f**k off to Saturn where you probably come from, but I can't be f**ked finding out. But I know you are bad because I hate people who are PC!
Cosimo2011-02-03 09:10:59
I like tautologies because I like them.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
GenericFan wrote:
Stefan wrote:
...Dont get me wrong. I dont hate Maori, some of my best friends are Maori...


Haha. But seriously, who cares? It's just another day off.
 
Not for most this year.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
My (limited) understanding of the Waitangi Treaty is that it is actually 2 documents. One that was written in English by the Europeans and one that was translated into Maori, the latter of which is not as accurate as the former as there was no direct translation for a lot of English words in Maori therefore issues have arisen.
 

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
C-Diddy wrote:
My (limited) understanding of the Waitangi Treaty is that it is actually 2 documents. One that was written in English by the Europeans and one that was translated into Maori, the latter of which is not as accurate as the former as there was no direct translation for a lot of English words in Maori therefore issues have arisen.
 
 
Correct. Which is why in any legislation / court cases etc, they always refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, those being the underlying principle that were used to write both documents. As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if it were to go to international law the native version (i.e. maori) would be considered as the primary document.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
hlmphil wrote:
C-Diddy wrote:
My (limited) understanding of the Waitangi Treaty is that it is actually 2 documents. One that was written in English by the Europeans and one that was translated into Maori, the latter of which is not as accurate as the former as there was no direct translation for a lot of English words in Maori therefore issues have arisen.
 
 
Correct. Which is why in any legislation / court cases etc, they always refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, those being the underlying principle that were used to write both documents. As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if it were to go to international law the native version (i.e. maori) would be considered as the primary document.
Correct.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
My dad, who is also a member of the yellow fever, is a historian.
(yeaaaah.)
I'll get him to hold a nice lecture just for the yellow fever about the Treaty Of Waitangi.
Hahaaaaaa.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2B - you are most passionate about this topic.

Let me ask you a question, if you were the prime minister... what would your course of action about land issues (etc) be?
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If NZ becomes a republic, is the treaty of Waitangi still valid?

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Leggy wrote:
If NZ becomes a republic, is the treaty of Waitangi still valid?[/QUOTE]
 
It will indeed remain valid.
 
[quote="Former Monarchy NZ Chairman Professor Noel Cox."]"In strict legal terms, if New Zealand became a republic tomorrow it would make no difference to the Treaty of Waitangi. Speaking as a lawyer, it�s a long-established principle that successive governments take on responsibility for previous agreements.


More info: http://www.republic.org.nz/treatyofwaitangi
 
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Michael wrote:
2B - you are most passionate about this topic.

Let me ask you a question, if you were the prime minister... what would your course of action about land issues (etc) be?


Not sure if I would call myself passionate about the topic.  I just like to provide more facts to these type of discussions.
Obviously I'm not an expert so can't provide a 100% informed opinion, but I generally think that the current process(waitangi tribunal etc) seems to be working.  However, I don't agree with setting a time frame for settling dispute.  I don't think it helps to get fair settlements.

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
While I'm all for treaty settlements - I've studied NZ history - I do dislike how settlements all too often give financial benefit to Iwi elite (and lawyers!) and bypassing many Maori. All too regularly Maori on the ground recieve little benefit from the whole process. I understand Nga Tahu is an exception, an iwi where the money appears to filter down throughout - through business initiatives etc. The other issue is urbanised Maori who have become disconnected to their hapu are alienated from the process. Argh, the whole thing is just a big knot of problems, gives me a headache thinking about it. Another cider? Don't mind if I do.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
hlmphil wrote:
C-Diddy wrote:
My (limited) understanding of the Waitangi Treaty is that it is actually 2 documents. One that was written in English by the Europeans and one that was translated into Maori, the latter of which is not as accurate as the former as there was no direct translation for a lot of English words in Maori therefore issues have arisen.
�

�

Correct. Which is why in any legislation�/ court cases etc, they always refer to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, those being the underlying principle that were used to write both documents. As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if it were to go to international law the native version (i.e. maori) would be considered as the primary document.


Yeah or it'd be considered void.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Robb wrote:
Hard News wrote:
Dan at University.  Amusing.
 
Is it more amusing that I am?
Massey Wellington isn't a real university


A bit like Lincoln, is it?
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:
A bit like Lincoln, is it?
I haven't been to Lincoln so I can't really compare - but Massey Wellington left me rather un-impressed in my time there. Everything sub-standard. That being said, personal experiences differ, hopefully Dan will enjoy it more than I did.
Permalink Permalink
about 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Personally I haven't been to Lincoln but I've heard negative after negative about it.

Oh, and FOOTBALL IN THE GROIN!
Permalink Permalink