Permalink
Permalink
1) Punishing you for something your ancestors did
2) Giving away something thats yours (in the case of land, everyones) despite the fact that you haven't actually done anything wrong. And of cause you can rant about private land, but that is a different story.
Its evident the poor attitude of New Zealanders. When a differing view is posed to that of the bandwagons' - you're either a racist, stupid or completely selfish. This thread has proved it. When Helen Clark put a deadline of treaty claims (so, heaven for bid, we didn't have to do this for the next thousand years) it was evident. Plenty of examples for this and not just treaty related.
2) Giving away something thats yours (in the case of land, everyones) despite the fact that you haven't actually done anything wrong. And of cause you can rant about private land, but that is a different story.
Its evident the poor attitude of New Zealanders. When a differing view is posed to that of the bandwagons' - you're either a racist, stupid or completely selfish. This thread has proved it. When Helen Clark put a deadline of treaty claims (so, heaven for bid, we didn't have to do this for the next thousand years) it was evident. Plenty of examples for this and not just treaty related.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You can't have a decent discussion with ill-informed opinions like this.
Firstly, who, exactly, is getting punished? The Crown entered into an agreement with Maori, didn't follow through on it, and are in the process of rectifying it. Private individuals are not involved in this in any way (other than the fact that their tax dollars are used in the compensation packages, but no taxes were ver raised because of this particular issue, were they?). So, once again, how are YOU getting punished here?
The second bit about land is even more ridiculous. The only land that ever gets returned is non-essential Crown land that's economically viable, and this is fairly rare. The Treaty process overall includes compensation packages, apologies, and the ability to participate in decision-making processes of importance in their rohe.
So none of the things mentioned in your post have any semblance of the reality of the Treaty settlement process, but let's not facts get in the way of a good yarn.
Permalink
Permalink
There have been some interesting points raised in this thread.
When millions of dollars are being spent on maoris/land etc., it is no wonder that my next door neighbour reckons that he does not want final settlement dates as he wants this to continue forever.
When millions of dollars are being spent on maoris/land etc., it is no wonder that my next door neighbour reckons that he does not want final settlement dates as he wants this to continue forever.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
Just give them the whole country,ship any white people out on boats and be done with it.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
In all honesty I wouldn't have a problem with some form of compensation given to african-americans. Probably not a cash sum, but if, for example, there were tax breaks given on certain things such as healthcare to help curb the obvious difference between the socio-economic status of european and african americans.
Yeah. That's a great way to bring equality and bridge racial gaps.
I'm being sarcastic by the way.
You can't give one race a tax break and not any other,that's racist. It's not equality,it's "we treated you like crap so now we'll reverse that". Meanwhile people of the races that aren't getting the tax breaks get a negative attitude toward those that do. Suddenly a backward step has been taken.
The way to equality is to treat everybody equally.
This is nothing to do with land claims etc. Entirely different kettle of fish. But we can't let it hold us back as a country,which it is. It's dividing the country into us vs them. It's important that all claims be settled and quickly.
Anyway,this thread is boring.
While I see your point and apologize in advance if I'm boring you I think that doing nothing to correct a wrong which is still having an effect on a race which may result in a bit of tension and resentment being stirred up is far better than doing nothing to correct what was done and potentially leaving a lot of tension in the disadvantaged group against the more advantaged, probably majority group.
Man the above needed a full stop or two like you wouldn't believe.
My problem is the easy abuse of such initiatives. I'm part Maori but very much Europeanized and have no real connection to Maori culture but I'm sure my family and I would try to get a tax break for Maori if one was offered and we were eligible. So would the rest of you in this scenario. It would defeat the purpose of the tax break but still be legitimate. This would also add fuel to the fire of the angry white males.
loyalgunner2011-02-06 13:54:43
Permalink
Permalink
There have been some interesting points raised in this thread.
When millions of dollars are being spent on maoris/land etc., it is no wonder that my next door neighbour reckons that he does not want final settlement dates as he wants this to continue forever.
When millions of dollars are being spent on maoris/land etc., it is no wonder that my next door neighbour reckons that he does not want final settlement dates as he wants this to continue forever.
While there can only ever be a set number of grievances. Eventually without a limit, all the cases would be heard.
So putting a time limit on these raises the possibility of someone not getting a fair deal.
Permalink
Permalink
I look forward to the day when New Zealand doesn't have to look backwards and set policies which look backwards too. I really want us to focus on pulling finger economically and make a success of the place. I look forward to when the Iwi trusts become active players in the economy and become owners. Prolonging some separatist vision of the future is just a mistake that will drag us all down.
Permalink
Permalink
I look forward to the day when New Zealand doesn't have to look backwards and set policies which look backwards too. I really want us to focus on pulling finger economically and make a success of the place. I look forward to when the Iwi trusts become active players in the economy and become owners. Prolonging some separatist vision of the future is just a mistake that will drag us all down.
They already do.
Permalink
Permalink
I look forward to the day when New Zealand doesn't have to look backwards and set policies which look backwards too.� I really want us to focus on pulling finger economically and make a success of the place.� I look forward to when the Iwi trusts become active players in the economy and become owners.� Prolonging some separatist vision of the future is just a mistake that will drag us all down.
They already do.
Like the Tainui buying the Warriors.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah, understood, but they could do so much more. Something like 50 percent of Iwi trust land hasn't been surveyed and about 30 percent is hard to access. So the land may be better used for other stuff rather than forestry.
If we go back in history a bit, Maori had something of an enterprise culture (wheat fields in the Waikato etc.) revive that culutre and then there is real potential to have a step change in economic strength. http://www.berl.co.nz/1253a1.page
edward l2011-02-06 15:21:14
Permalink
Permalink
I look forward to the day when New Zealand doesn't have to look backwards and set policies which look backwards too. I really want us to focus on pulling finger economically and make a success of the place. I look forward to when the Iwi trusts become active players in the economy and become owners. Prolonging some separatist vision of the future is just a mistake that will drag us all down.
They already do.
Like the Tainui buying the Warriors.
Your point?
Permalink
Permalink
I look forward to the day when New Zealand doesn't have to look backwards and set policies which look backwards too.� I really want us to focus on pulling finger economically and make a success of the place.� I look forward to when the Iwi trusts become active players in the economy and become owners.� Prolonging some separatist vision of the future is just a mistake that will drag us all down.
They already do.
Like the Tainui buying the Warriors.
With the money recieved, I would have thought one could have helped the tribe better than buying a league team.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Mr_Incredible2011-02-06 15:58:14
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
I wasn't aware there was conditions attached to settlements?
Don't see them scrutinizing how you spend your money.
Don't see them scrutinizing how you spend your money.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Honestly Leggy. I don't say this lightly, but you are a dip sh*t sometimes. It's their money. They made a bad investment. They won't be the last people to do that.
Would you like me to produce a list of other people who haven't made money in business venture?
Permalink
Permalink
Only if they're Maori. The rest of us are allowed,but they're not apparently.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Honestly Leggy. I don't say this lightly, but you are a dip sh*t sometimes. It's their money. They made a bad investment. They won't be the last people to do that.
Would you like me to produce a list of other people who haven't made money in business venture?
Couldn't you say it's different in the sense that they have an obligation to their tribe. Other bad investments may not have such ramifications on others but things like this effect a wider group, a struggling group.
Basically what I'm saying is that it's a fair enough question to ask how their investment in the league team went.
Permalink
Permalink
Except leggys tone was that instead of putting it into the tribe they went and bought a league team for fun (which they're also entitled to do without criticism - it's their money).
They're also allowed to make bad investments without extra criticism just because they're Maori. The only ones who have any right to criticize in such a way would be members of the particular tribe.
Its actually that sort of attitude that comes about,that I was talking about earlier. Close to a perfect example. "we give them handouts and they go and buy a league team"Tegal2011-02-06 16:45:56
They're also allowed to make bad investments without extra criticism just because they're Maori. The only ones who have any right to criticize in such a way would be members of the particular tribe.
Its actually that sort of attitude that comes about,that I was talking about earlier. Close to a perfect example. "we give them handouts and they go and buy a league team"Tegal2011-02-06 16:45:56
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Dip sh*ts sometimes make good points.
If I won a million dollars on lotto, I would look after my family. Help pay their mortgage etc. I would not waste it.
I'm sure even you can understand that.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
So you wouldn't go out and buy something for fun,or make a bad investment?
I call bullsh*t on that.
I call bullsh*t on that.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Leggy knows the future. He'd never make a bad investment.
Permalink
Permalink
So you wouldn't go out and buy something for fun,or make a bad investment?
I call bullsh*t on that.
I call bullsh*t on that.
I used the word' waste' I also said I would look after my family first.
If buying a new car was a bad investment, then I could be guilty.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
Leggy knows the future. He'd never make a bad investment.
And sarcism is the worst form of wit.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Dip sh*ts sometimes make good points.
If I won a million dollars on lotto, I would look after my family. Help pay their mortgage etc. I would not waste it.
I'm sure even you can understand that.
Unfortunately, this is not the case this time.
I can see why you live in Aussie.
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Dip sh*ts sometimes make good points.
If I won a million dollars on lotto, I would look after my family. Help pay their mortgage etc. I would not waste it.
I'm sure even you can understand that.
You might try and bully others to agree with you Ben, but it won't work with me.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
gee things are getting heated in the old off topic!
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Dip sh*ts sometimes make good points.
If I won a million dollars on lotto, I would look after my family. Help pay their mortgage etc. I would not waste it.
I'm sure even you can understand that.
You might try and bully others to agree with you Ben, but it won't work with me.
Well every time I'll respond with a well thought out and reasoned post, you ignore it.
I'll try again. Fistly I don't like your lotto analogy because it implies that Maori won money for doing bugger all. But lets run it for the moment. You spend some of your money on looking after your family, but your pool of money to do that wild dwindles. Soon, you'll have no money to do that.
Instead, you could invest some money (such as buying shares in a rugby league team) in the hope you grow your pot. While also helping others. Such as tertiary education grant (which is what else they do).
Permalink
Permalink
A league team is an asset which has the potential to bring money into the iwi.
Did it?
Dip sh*ts sometimes make good points.
If I won a million dollars on lotto, I would look after my family. Help pay their mortgage etc. I would not waste it.
I'm sure even you can understand that.
You might try and bully others to agree with you Ben, but it won't work with me.
I never for one moment inferred that the lotto money was in any way similar to the money given to Maori. My point was just my opinion that they could have done better with the money. You are still being belligerent and bulling.(I can see why you live in Australia- comment)
Does everyone have to agree with you, or can we make our own points.
This particular thread does not interest me one iota. I was only giving my opinion.
If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid
Permalink
Permalink
Of course in hindsight they could have done better. Same goes for Alan Hubbard. Nonetheless it''s still an irrelevant point hence why I'm calling you out on it.
Permalink
Permalink
El G- to its set in concrete. You just hate people that disagree with you. But hey, we're all guilty.
Permalink
Permalink
So even if there is no crown any more the agreement between the crown and Maori still stands how does that work ? Maori would therefore be relying on a principled Pakeha majority Government to continue with the negotiations and settlements .
Why would Maori have any desire for NZ to become a republic? surely its a case of better the devil you know ?[/QUOTE]
Funny how I included a link with the words "More info" next to it, then you proceeded to ask me for more info. I think this excerpt from that link should have your answers though:
[quote=Republic.org.nz]In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. King George VI became the King of New Zealand independent of his role as the British Monarch, and the New Zealand Crown was legally divided from the British Crown.
The rest of it here - http://www.republic.org.nz/treatyofwaitangi
Why would Maori have any desire for NZ to become a republic? surely its a case of better the devil you know ?[/QUOTE]
Funny how I included a link with the words "More info" next to it, then you proceeded to ask me for more info.
I think this excerpt from that link should have your answers though:[quote=Republic.org.nz]In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. King George VI became the King of New Zealand independent of his role as the British Monarch, and the New Zealand Crown was legally divided from the British Crown.
The sovereignty originally vested in Queen Victoria by the Treaty passed from the British Crown to the New Zealand crown. With the passing of that statute "the Crown" became "the Crown in right of New Zealand". This legal process is nothing new and happens all the time in international law. For example, in 1992 the Russian Federation acquired all of the responsibilities for the treaties of the former Soviet Union when the country was broken up.
Becoming a republic would mean transferring the Treaty's responsibilities again, as was done in 1947, to the new head of state. This would leave responsibility for the Treaty where it has always laid: with the New Zealand Parliament and its executive Government. Successive Governments have both ignored the Treaty and, more recently, set about making amends. It has been the New Zealand Parliament that has made apologies and paid reparations to Iwi, not the British Parliament.
With the establishment of colonial self-government in 1853, Great Britain delegated the colony�s governance to the colonial settlers. Confiscations carried out by �the Crown� during this period were prompted by the colonial government, not by the British Parliament. While the British-appointed Governor often fought with colonial Premiers over their policies towards M?ori, it was the New Zealand government that ignored the Treaty.
There were several M?ori delegations (including one led by King T?whiao) to London in the years following the Treaty of Waitangi. They were all dismissed, and sent back to the Colonial government in New Zealand, which ignored them. This has led some, such as M?ori lawyer and academic Moana Jackson, to argue that the real party to the Treaty is not �the Crown� in a practical sense, but �Kawanatanga�, as defined by the Treaty: the New Zealand Government, formerly the Colonial Government.
Churz Bro
It was a bit of a patsy question for sure ,but nice to see the answer in all its glory for everyone to see!
Kiwi Jambo2011-02-06 21:39:21
The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.
Permalink
Permalink
There was a war fought between the Crown and Maori in the 1860s.
Wouldn't this invalidate the Treaty of Waitangi?
(playing devils advocate ...)
Hmm, having read the article on land confiscations, there was hardly a just outcome to the war ...
Bevan2011-02-06 22:24:09
Wouldn't this invalidate the Treaty of Waitangi?
(playing devils advocate ...)
Hmm, having read the article on land confiscations, there was hardly a just outcome to the war ...
Bevan2011-02-06 22:24:09
Permalink
Permalink
Was the treaty ever officially ratified?
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
The Ruf, The Ruf, The Ruf is on Fire!!
Permalink
Permalink
Was the treaty ever officially ratified?
Oh there's been several attempts to rat on it !!
The answer to life's problems are rarely found at the bottom of a beer glass - but it's always worth a look.
Permalink
Permalink