Whitey wins again
Denying Maori representation on the Auckland Super City (after National and ACT annexed the city by misusing urgency) is manifestly racist as the system denies them of any voice, when was the last Maori elected to the Auckland City council? In 150 years they've had 8 - 8 GOD DAMMIT! And this is the system so many of my garden variety bigot NZers want to hold up and claim is representative - 8 in 150 years? And this is after Maori have had Auckland land they gifted to NZ taken from them, divided up and sold from under them. To deny them representation after the land they gifted was stolen in such an underhand manner suggests those making the decisions or those supporting it have not a fucking clue about history in Auckland.
It's a sick sad day for NZ. This is Brashism but fronted by the smiley nice multi millionaire aspirational Optimist Prime, John Key. But hey, instead of understand that, let’s have another round of distractions with more bullshit attempts to gain the legal right to belt your kids.
How weak of Key to bow to ACT and how disgusting that National made the call on the Maori seats BEFORE they even finished the ‘consultation’ process, exactly like they did with the Climate Change ‘consultation’. How racist of Hide to force it and how sad to see the Maori Party so terribly treated. Ugh, the ignorant rednecks are marching and they are winning. What an ugly, ugly sight.
posted by Bomber @ 1:40 pm
32 comments
32 Comments:
"Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[1] In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment, "
I fail to see why refusing to give seats which discriminate on the basis of race is racist.
Further saying Maori today cant as a group choose to vote in Maori representation is surely racist in itself by saying Maori effectively cant look after themselves.
Finally is that 8 figure you refer to the Auckland City Council? If so its not exactly the council where the majority of Maori in Auckland live is it? Further a more telling stat would be the level in the last 10 years.
8 Maori in 150 years - that's what you call representative is it 'anon'?
"8 Maori in 150 years - that's what you call representative is it 'anon'?
Was "whitey" stopping Maori from standing? Was "whitey" stopping Maori from voting in local body elections?
No.
I think it is sickeningly condescending to Maori that they be treated as if they are too dumb to elect a Maori representative on their own accord.
What I think is interesting is that if Maori can't or won't collectively vote for a Maori candidate by normal means, then what reassurance do we have that any candidate who gets elected in a special Maori seat will truly be representing anybody but the elite few who put him/her in power? Will the non tribally represented Maori be properly represented by Maori seats? How can this be guaranteed?
What I think you both fail to Acknowledge in your righteous little rants is the history at hand here. The theft of land, the legal maneuvering to keep Maori from that land. The fucking farce here is our two friends lambaste Maori for only 8 elected in 150 years without acknowledging that the fpp system is always skewed against Maori candidates or that after having land stolen off them and having to fight at Bastion Point it is somehow Maori fault again for not participating.
You both seem to have no idea of the history at work here yet are both prepared to attack Maori for a system that has never represented them well. Extraordinary abilities form you both to comment without knowing or even being vaguely aware of the context.
Ha - calling me righteous after calling all those who disagree with you racists. The irony.
Lets deconstruct your assertions.
"The theft of land, the legal maneuvering to keep Maori from that land."
Being dealt with seperately through the treaty settlement process.
"lambaste Maori for only 8 elected in 150 years without acknowledging that the fpp system is always skewed"
Now we are really streching Mr Bomber. Firstly FPP - it no longer exists thank god. We have MMP, which gives proportional representation. If the Supercouncil is using FPP as the electorial system (have no clue if this is the case) shouldnt we be rallying against that? If not how is how FPP discriminates at all relevant to a future governmental structure?
Further you are using historical data (from an area which isnt exactly been dominated by a high proportion of maori voters) to determine how a completely different future structure is going to fail. Saying that my statement "Further saying Maori today cant as a group choose to vote in Maori representation is surely racist in itself by saying Maori effectively cant look after themselves." somehow is attacking Maori for historical outcomes when it is a comment looking at the future governmental structure is a stretch.
"You both seem to have no idea of the history at work here yet are both prepared to attack Maori for a system that has never represented them well. Extraordinary abilities form you both to comment without knowing or even being vaguely aware of the context."
Again you are using completely different fact scenarios to prove why a future system is to fail. Noone with an ounce of sense is going to say Maori historically got the raw end of the deal. However saying that going forward in a representative system they cant elect someone that represents their best interests in a system which is representative is racism in itself.
"You both seem to have no idea of the history at work here yet are both prepared to attack Maori for a system that has never represented them well."
I'd say Maori are getting a fairer go at representation now than before.
Remind us again the nature of maori tribal society, was it democratic? No it was ruled by a small elite based on bloodline.
How was that represenatative of what the maori PEOPLE wanted.
Bomber, your argument that non-allocated elections aren't representative is like a sieve.
Perhaps your argument would be more solid if you referred to the Treaty.
How about this:
The Treaty was based on partnership in governance. However because of the demographic equation Maori aren't guaranteed partnership. Therefore Maori require allocated seats.
Ha - calling me righteous after calling all those who disagree with you racists. The irony.
That’s because denying Maori a voice makes you racist Jeff, simple as that.
Being dealt with seperately through the treaty settlement process.
You can not separate the historical context of Maori having representation and loss of land, that’s how they gained their electorate seats which you agreed you had no problem with. These exact same forces are at work at a local level. Turn of the 19th century the Auckland City Council through underhand means tried to take and then simply annexed Maori land. The claimants are finally at the table when National and ACT suddenly annex Auckland and then go against the Royal Commission advice and remove any seats for Maoridom. To shrug and suggest the past injustice should just be pushed off to the treaty claims office without acknowledging the past with Maori representation simply continues the grievance, and we hand this legacy down to our kids. Great job.
Now we are really streching Mr Bomber. Firstly FPP - it no longer exists thank god.
Stretching things? WTF? Yes or no Jeff, did fpp operate in the 150 years that denied Maoridom a voice other than the 8 elected?
We have MMP, which gives proportional representation. If the Supercouncil is using FPP as the electorial system (have no clue if this is the case) shouldnt we be rallying against that? If not how is how FPP discriminates at all relevant to a future governmental structure?
The manner in which the seats has not been decided, in National and ACT’s rush to annex Auckland, there has been no debate on the voting method. You are asking Maori who have been cheated for 150 years to just trust that the system will look after them huh?
Further you are using historical data (from an area which isnt exactly been dominated by a high proportion of maori voters) to determine how a completely different future structure is going to fail. Saying that my statement "Further saying Maori today cant as a group choose to vote in Maori representation is surely racist in itself by saying Maori effectively cant look after themselves." somehow is attacking Maori for historical outcomes when it is a comment looking at the future governmental structure is a stretch.
LOL – we just wipe clean the slate huh Jeff, “don’t look at the 150 year history where Maori have been screwed repeatedly, just trust the new system, oh and by the way, you have representative voice even though the Royal Commission suggested you should.” Great advice Jeff, would you be so trusting?
Again you are using completely different fact scenarios to prove why a future system is to fail.
This line of reason from you, that we can’t look at the past to make our current decision is a joke.
Noone with an ounce of sense is going to say Maori historically got the raw end of the deal.
Well I am Jeff I’m saying Maori historically got the raw end of the deal and pretending they didn’t like you are, is simply a lie.
However saying that going forward in a representative system they cant elect someone that represents their best interests in a system which is representative is racism in itself.
And how you managed to find that as your conclusion is extraordinary. Denying the past to excuse the present while justifing denial of representation is beige racism Jeff, no matter how you want to dress it up.
Bomber, your argument that non-allocated elections aren't representative is like a sieve.
Perhaps your argument would be more solid if you referred to the Treaty.
How about this:
The Treaty was based on partnership in governance. However because of the demographic equation Maori aren't guaranteed partnership. Therefore Maori require allocated seats.
Grin - thank you Chris, I simply assumed 'representative' would be understood from the position of indigenous culture, but you are right, it needs better definition and you've done that very well, thank you.
New Zealand belongs to New Zealanders Bomber,
one person,
one vote,
no class,
no race,
no special votes for bloody Australians,
you are going to be sad Bomber, but that is open and fair democracy,
Reading the first few lines of this post only, would lead one to believe that maori are barred from standing and barred from voting. As they are not barred from full participation I am strugling to see what the problem is.
Why don't you read Chris' comment then. The percentage of Maori people able to vote is low enough to mean the chance of a Maori being elected is very slim.
Democracy? Yes. In line with the treaty? No.
Wait a minute, why is Bomber promoting the rantings of tory MP who was formerly a member of a racist pro-white party (NZ First) which advocated an immigration policy reminiscent of imperialist britain as legitimate criticism for against a decision which treats everyone as equal?
Bomber, If you wanted to chose someone who utterly lacks credibility on condemning racist then you have succeded.
Can a person only be represented by someone of their race and sex? So if a Chinese woman was my local MP, I wouldn't be represented, or if I find a half Scottish/English descent man in another seat (regardless of party) I'm somehow represented?
If you balkanise people into groups then plenty are not "represented". Being Maori is not special any more than being gay, being Korean, being adopted, being an IT worker, being a Muslim or the like. People have wide ranging views and interests. Selecting one characteristic out as being special is banal, particularly a characteristic you can't choose. Nobody should get political representation based on who their ancestors are.
Maori can be represented, they can vote for who they want, and stand. If nobody they want gets elected, they can join the club with thousands of voters.
For the last four general elections in NZ I have never elected anyone who represents me to Parliament - but I'm not moaning that I've been excluded, just not enough people who share my views vote the way I do.
Claiming Maori are represented when in 150 years only 8 have been elected within the context of the Auckland City Council cheating and then annexing Maori land at the turn of the 19th century while the Treaty guarantees a partnership of governance. All that is being done here is hand another legacy of rightous grievance to our kids to have to live with.
"And this is after Maori have had Auckland land they gifted to NZ taken from them, "
"To deny them representation after the land they gifted was stolen "
Excuse my ignorance here, but how can a 'gift' be 'taken', or for that matter 'stolen' by the people it was gifted to?
NS
The gift was supposed to be jointly managed, and beyond the gifted land the Auckland City Council post 1912 built a sewar line right through the middle of Maori land and then proceeded to try and cheat the ownership of that land eventually annexing it.
Many posters here obviously have NO understanding of the history of indigenous peoples, the methods by which discrimination is perpetuated, OR more specifically THE RIGHTS guaranteed to Maori under the treaty.
The land that Auckland is built on, 3500 acres, was leased to Governer Hobson in 1840 as a tuku (defined below):
"These gifts were not alienations of land. They were the granting of a right to use the assigned land while the mana or authority of the land remained with the donor group. In Maori terms, it was a "tuku" of the land. In European terms, one could say that a "tuku" is more like a lease than a sale.
When the receiving group moved away, the land returned to the givers. Also, while the receiving group was in occupation they would express their appreciation for the gift by showing respect for and consulting with those who held the mana of the land. Commonly, they gave their benefactors some share in the benefits they gained from the use the land." (Susan Healy, Herald 2009)
Furthermore, "such transfer of use rights in land was an effective and proven mechanism for establishing alliances - a mechanism, however, in which the underlying title remained with the donor group". (Sir Hugh Kawharu, Hillary Lecture 2001)
So in fact it is by the graciousness of Ngati Whatua that Auckland exists at all, and it is incredibly insulting and ignorant to even assume that it's up for debate that they should have representation, on the council that governs THEIR LAND.
"The gift was supposed to be jointly managed"
It's obviously not a gift then.
Thanks Frankie, that makes a lot of sense and is very helpful.
NS
“Well I am Jeff I’m saying Maori historically got the raw end of the deal and pretending they didn’t like you are, is simply a lie."
Darn it my words were badly written. Tried to say no one could disagree that Maori got a raw deal historically.
"You can not separate the historical context of Maori having representation and loss of land, that’s how they gained their electorate seats which you agreed you had no problem with. These exact same forces are at work at a local level. Turn of the 19th century the Auckland City Council through underhand means tried to take and then simply annexed Maori land. The claimants are finally at the table when National and ACT suddenly annex Auckland and then go against the Royal Commission advice and remove any seats for Maoridom. To shrug and suggest the past injustice should just be pushed off to the treaty claims office without acknowledging the past with Maori representation simply continues the grievance, and we hand this legacy down to our kids. Great job"
I am not saying the should simply shrug them off. I am saying that the historical grivances are an issue between the crown and Maori, and the best method for this is at the national level, not regional politics. Yes input should be given by local iwi, but this should be through a) representative seats and b) consultation on issues which effect them. I do not believe in seperate seats on racial lines.
" Stretching things? WTF? Yes or no Jeff, did fpp operate in the 150 years that denied Maoridom a voice other than the 8 elected?"
Does it operate now? Do we have representational representation now? No and yes. Accordingly using a historical grievance to justify why going forward on a representational model is going to fail is streching the facts. It also says nothing has changed, or can change and that Maori need to rely on seperate seats to get elected which is bull shit. Parliament proves this is not the case, with this 'taboo' group as you are almost trying to put it occupying seats which are low and behold not on the Maori role. Ironcially Maori would potentially get a better deal with out seperate seats as they would be forced to give their party vote to the Maori party (which has been performing fantastically) thereby forcing labour to rely on them - which they currently have not had to having still been given the party vote.
"The manner in which the seats has not been decided, in National and ACT’s rush to annex Auckland, there has been no debate on the voting method. You are asking Maori who have been cheated for 150 years to just trust that the system will look after them huh?"
This isnt solely a Maori issue, its an issue for everyone. If we get cheated again with a FPP system I will join in any resistance movement to it. However I dont believe in prejudging things. Further I think you would get allot more support if this is what people were fighting for. But its not and the reason its not is that what is really wanted is a voice stronger than a proportional system will deliver. If this is to be anywhere its at a National not local level.
"LOL – we just wipe clean the slate huh Jeff, “don’t look at the 150 year history where Maori have been screwed repeatedly, just trust the new system, oh and by the way, you have representative voice even though the Royal Commission suggested you should.” Great advice Jeff, would you be so trusting? "
You seem so favourable to other commissions which investigate things, i.e. treasury etc etc. Commissions generally come back with the answer the groups that created them wanted as you elogantly often point out with other such 'reviews' of healthcare, education etc etc.
"This line of reason from you, that we can’t look at the past to make our current decision is a joke. "
No I am saying you cant look at historical data with different facts to decisively judge a future outcome.
"Excuse my ignorance here, but how can a 'gift' be 'taken', or for that matter 'stolen' by the people it was gifted to?"
Bloody heaps of examples of this when it was gifted for something and then down the track tried to be sold off etc. Baston Point, Ragland Golfcourse, lack of consultation historically to Maori re National Park (Ruapehu etc).
So in fact it is by the graciousness of Ngati Whatua that Auckland exists at all, and it is incredibly insulting and ignorant to even assume that it's up for debate that they should have representation, on the council that governs THEIR LAND.
Help me out here because I genuinely don't understand.
If the land was taken from Ngati Whatua, why is there a demand that ALL Maori should have special represented seats?
Seeing as it was Ngati Whatua whose land was taken and Ngati Whatua who are for want of a better description "Auckland Maori", then shouldn't the special seats be for Ngati Whatua only?
Why should Waikato or Ngai Tahu or Nga Puhi Maori get to vote on who represents Ngati Whatua?
But Dave you've been argueing against Maori getting any representation whatsoever, so the fact you don't understand isn't a surprise is it?
I am not saying the should simply shrug them off. I am saying that the historical grivances are an issue between the crown and Maori, and the best method for this is at the national level, not regional politics. Yes input should be given by local iwi, but this should be through a) representative seats and b) consultation on issues which effect them.
That bullshit line of not wanting seats based on race lines is a cop out when you consider the treaty and it's responsibilities and the historical context you are talking about.
Does it operate now? Do we have representational representation now? No and yes. Accordingly using a historical grievance to justify why going forward on a representational model is going to fail is streching the facts.
LOL - 8 maoris in 150 years and trying to validate that system is stretching things too far, pointing it out is the truth.
It also says nothing has changed, or can change
Your mindest Jeff shows that nothing has changed.
and that Maori need to rely on seperate seats to get elected which is bull shit.
Cough, cough - Treaty Jeff, the Treaty, that founding document of the country says they are allowed that representation, pretending that it is paternalistic to give Maori representation suggests you need to read more NZ history.
Parliament proves this is not the case, with this 'taboo' group as you are almost trying to put it occupying seats which are low and behold not on the Maori role. Ironcially Maori would potentially get a better deal with out seperate seats as they would be forced to give their party vote to the Maori party (which has been performing fantastically) thereby forcing labour to rely on them - which they currently have not had to having still been given the party vote.
LMAO - so because the Maori Party has been able to do a good job at the national level, screw reprseentation anywhere else? You also fail to note the Maori Party are where they are BECAUSE of seats, not party vote.
This isnt solely a Maori issue, its an issue for everyone.
But with the history of the Auckland City Council stealing and removing Maori representation, it is VERY pertinant to Maori
If we get cheated again with a FPP system I will join in any resistance movement to it. However I dont believe in prejudging things.
After National and ACT annexed Auckland with a misuse of parliament, you 'trust' they'll do the right thing? Good on you Jeff.
Further I think you would get allot more support if this is what people were fighting for. But its not and the reason its not is that what is really wanted is a voice stronger than a proportional system will deliver. If this is to be anywhere its at a National not local level.
I'm not wanting any 'support' Jeff, I'm merely pointing out that whitey wins again, and that Maori are the ones who suffer once again while idiots run around trying to defend it as one person one vote, I'd just like there to be a record that some people opposed that racist mentality.
You seem so favourable to other commissions which investigate things, i.e. treasury etc etc.
JEFF! The commission recommended the Maori seats, and National have alread ruled them out before they have completed their consultation, just like they did with climate change.
Commissions generally come back with the answer the groups that created them wanted as you elogantly often point out with other such 'reviews' of healthcare, education etc etc.
Which is the point I've made.
No I am saying you cant look at historical data with different facts to decisively judge a future outcome.
The facts are exactly the same, the same actors - Auckland City Council, the crown and Ngati Whatua and the exact same apologists for the exact same abuses of power.
But Dave you've been argueing against Maori getting any representation whatsoever, so the fact you don't understand isn't a surprise is it?
Fine avoid the question then if you don't have the answer, thats on you and you wonder why people post anonymously?
You are the one saying Maori should have special representation so justify it.
You are saying Maori had land taken off them so they should have special seat. But as Frankie points out, it wasn't Maori in general, it was Ngati Whatua, so why don't you tell us all why other Maori should have a say in Ngati Whatua affairs?
How is that fair?
Fine avoid the question then if you don't have the answer, thats on you and you wonder why people post anonymously?
If people are too gutless to put a name to their opinion that's my fault? You suddenly have a pretense to hear the answer do you Dave? You don't even support the seats!
You are the one saying Maori should have special representation so justify it.
I have many times, you just intend to sweep the history under the carpet because it's conclusions are not palatable.
You are saying Maori had land taken off them so they should have special seat. But as Frankie points out, it wasn't Maori in general, it was Ngati Whatua, so why don't you tell us all why other Maori should have a say in Ngati Whatua affairs?
How is that fair?
Frankie's point doesn't contradict my position at all Dave s, the answer is so fucking obvious it's a joke you have to ask again, it ain't up to us white folk to impose that on Ngati Whatua or Waikato or Ngai Tahu or Nga Puhi or Maoridom in general, that is a debate THEY need to have and THEY can tell us which form of representation they want. Instead of imposing it upon them which is part of the problem of the last 150 years, but of course you don't see that right Dave s?
It's not as if the process to date has been democratic in the least:
National/Act made no mention of this plan pre-election;
pushed it through Parliament under urgency (the Act tail wagging the National dog);
ignored both the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the protests of Tangata Whenua and others (hikoi);
plan to throw out the councillors WE democratically elected in the last local body elections and replace them with their sympathetic cronies;
Where's the democracy there?
So why bandy the word about as if it has any meaning in this situation?
All Ngati Whatua, or "Maori" if you prefer, are doing, is desperately trying to get some of the rights they are entitled to under the treaty, in the middle of this shitstorm.
And the fact that National/Act think it is their God-given right to decide what is best not only for Ngati Whatua, but for every citizen of Auckland, WITHOUT DUE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS mind you, just shows how very arrogant and fucked their thinking is.
And why are the Maori Party just meekly swallowing this?
That bullshit line of not wanting seats based on race lines is a cop out when you consider the treaty and it's responsibilities and the historical context you are talking about.
The responsibilities of the treaty do not require seats based on race lines. They more guarantee respect for treasures - which they havent been and what the Waitangi Tribunal is for sorting out and guadianship over some of those, especially areas which were gifted. Again the best way to gain this is such areas rights are given to relevant Maori by statute which gives them such powers. Not through setting up regional seats based on race.
LOL - 8 maoris in 150 years and trying to validate that system is stretching things too far, pointing it out is the truth.
Ignore my entire point of FPP vs. a representational model. You cant use the facts of a previously skewed system to show why under a truely proportional system Maori cant suceed. A proportional system gives them the opportunity to do so, its up to Maori to take that opportunity.
After National and ACT annexed Auckland with a misuse of parliament, you 'trust' they'll do the right thing? Good on you Jeff.
I said I wont prejudge. We will see soon enough.
LMAO - so because the Maori Party has been able to do a good job at the national level, screw reprseentation anywhere else? You also fail to note the Maori Party are where they are BECAUSE of seats, not party vote.
You also ignored my point that because of the seats their supporters can ignore giving them their party vote and therefore force labour to actually negotiate with them. Accordingly to http://www.huitaumata.maori.nz/pdf/population.pdf at 2001 15% of the population was Maori. Accordinly if Maori wanted they could elect using the current representation model.
And no I didnt say they shouldnt have representation else where, I said where thier is an elected position else where it should be elected by getting the votes to do so which are not restricted on race grounds.
I'm not wanting any 'support' Jeff, I'm merely pointing out that whitey wins again, and that Maori are the ones who suffer once again while idiots run around trying to defend it as one person one vote, I'd just like there to be a record that some people opposed that racist mentality.
Unless you are wanting to redifine the word racist (gave you a nice definition early on) I think you would struggle to say my views are racist. The fact you say its idiots who believe in one person one vote almost goes to show how much you care for democracy.
"You seem so favourable to other commissions which investigate things, i.e. treasury etc etc.
JEFF! The commission recommended the Maori seats, and National have alread ruled them out before they have completed their consultation, just like they did with climate change.
Commissions generally come back with the answer the groups that created them wanted as you elogantly often point out with other such 'reviews' of healthcare, education etc etc.
Which is the point I've made."
PRECICELY - you hit it on the head - the royal commission supported it because it was formed to come to that conclusion as it was formed under Labour and they saw such a formation as a potential plus to increasing their influence on Auckland. The reason this was particulaly the case was the representation recommended by the commission was essentially the effect of giving maori 3 votes for every other citizen - well blatently fuck that.
Your mindest Jeff shows that nothing has changed.
This comment reminds me of that kids game you play as a child - I know you are you said you so what am I.
And here's your answer Jeff
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593649
Whitey wins again
"The Treaty was based on partnership in governance."
Really? Perhaps you could point me to the particular clause in which this "partnership in governance" was agreed.
Just the words used that confirm it would be fine.
Bomber,
A lot of discussion about racism on this thread but as yet no-one has yet defined what racism actually is. So, Bomber, it is your post so please, can you provide the definition?
Julian
"And here's your answer Jeff
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593649
Whitey wins again"
Grrr. And I would correct taht to the big 2 (Nat / Labour) win again. Fucking bs.
Post a Comment
<< Home