The department of education should make it mandatory to include this knowledge in all schools, rather than pay a large fee to be taught this information at a university level. It should be in the best interest of all New Zealanders to have a fair understanding of the true history and culture of this land. I think the powers that we entrust our children's education with would disagree with that on the grounds of losing public confidence in governance. Maybe government fear the public having general access to this knowledge clear and precise facts of true historical events that are not readily available. It is easier to find in our children's school books multiple facts about Adolf Hitler than it is to find one fact mentioned in this video. It is clear that the thinking from those times have not changed much today we are still alienated from our rights and ignorance is still flourishing among New Zealanders. If we start educating all people including those wishing to be domiciled to NZ about the history and move in a direction to remedy how Maori have been treated by the deceitful actions of others and its perpetual affects on Maori living standards once and for all I believe we would solve a major injustice that has plagued Maori for far to long. The behavior shown by early settlers in the illegal take over of New Zealand should be acknowledged by the Judicial system and the right adjustments made. not based on greed but on facts. Thank you Mr Henare this has been a very enlightening experience bless you.
Fun fact. This year, the current anti Māori government, gave home owners $2.9B dollars in one year. $400,000,000 more than every single waitangi tribunal settlement where the crown has given back what they have stolen 0.02% of the commercial re wine they have secured from land and resources that they have stolen.
Actually, British diplomacy recognized the Confederation of chiefs in 1835 as the very basis on which they were said to cede [nominal] sovereignty to the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi.
Colonial policy was against a separate economics/ politics for Maori with the idea of becoming one people under the Crown. This affected their policy of not wanting to give too much land to Maori at the time of settlement. The contradiction was that by the highest and ideal humanitarian thoughts of the day, Maori had rights to the whole of the land; from the practical perspective of the colonialists, it was absurd that a few uncivilized tribes could lay claim to the vast undeveloped wastelands that surrounded them, where even cultivated land was only possessed as long as it could be defended. NZ history followed the practice, as colonialists built a nation-state; modern history has re-discovered the humanitarian theory and litigated it ad nauseum to the point that this nation-state may end up split. The point of my writing this is that we should understand history on the terms and understandings of the day, and not write it on our own terms... where those colonialists become 'evil'. By classifying the colonialists as evil, you'll only create more racism.
From the economists point of view, Maori were meant to become workers in the economy like the many of the other settlers arriving in poor circumstances. The thought was that econoimic opportunity would allow the industrious to eventually buy land... with winners and losers in this competition. Of course, a transitional period should've been allowed from a traditional to a modern setting. This is what the reserves were meant to be... but the colonialists and economists were always too niggardly about that, and the extent and the manner is which confiscated lands were returned.The economics of it all is one thing, the political radicalization of it all is quite another~
He's wrong on "i28th October isn't about maori its about all nzers" Nu Tireni VS new Zealand. One is Sovereign one is a fraid and one enslaved all maori as "New zealanders" so matua is WRONG.
This man seems to have a very localized, "wrong view" of the Historical facts of the Treaty. The brief to Capt Hobson through Lord Normandy was clear. Britain was not interested in protection and providing Law and order unless full sovereignty was obtained. The Treaty is clear article one gave full chieftainship to the Crown. This man is not an historian!!
The department of education should make it mandatory to include this knowledge in all schools, rather than pay a large fee to be taught this information at a university level. It should be in the best interest of all New Zealanders to have a fair understanding of the true history and culture of this land. I think the powers that we entrust our children's education with would disagree with that on the grounds of losing public confidence in governance. Maybe government fear the public having general access to this knowledge clear and precise facts of true historical events that are not readily available. It is easier to find in our children's school books multiple facts about Adolf Hitler than it is to find one fact mentioned in this video. It is clear that the thinking from those times have not changed much today we are still alienated from our rights and ignorance is still flourishing among New Zealanders. If we start educating all people including those wishing to be domiciled to NZ about the history and move in a direction to remedy how Maori have been treated by the deceitful actions of others and its perpetual affects on Maori living standards once and for all I believe we would solve a major injustice that has plagued Maori for far to long. The behavior shown by early settlers in the illegal take over of New Zealand should be acknowledged by the Judicial system and the right adjustments made. not based on greed but on facts. Thank you Mr Henare this has been a very enlightening experience bless you.
Fine. But get the correct history first!! Not just the view only from Maori. There were two parties that signed the Treaty
Johnny are you still on fb
Kia Ora matua.. Pono korero ! Tu meke
Fun fact.
This year, the current anti Māori government, gave home owners $2.9B dollars in one year.
$400,000,000 more than every single waitangi tribunal settlement where the crown has given back what they have stolen 0.02% of the commercial re wine they have secured from land and resources that they have stolen.
Actually, British diplomacy recognized the Confederation of chiefs in 1835 as the very basis on which they were said to cede [nominal] sovereignty to the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi.
Colonial policy was against a separate economics/ politics for Maori with the idea of becoming one people under the Crown. This affected their policy of not wanting to give too much land to Maori at the time of settlement. The contradiction was that by the highest and ideal humanitarian thoughts of the day, Maori had rights to the whole of the land; from the practical perspective of the colonialists, it was absurd that a few uncivilized tribes could lay claim to the vast undeveloped wastelands that surrounded them, where even cultivated land was only possessed as long as it could be defended. NZ history followed the practice, as colonialists built a nation-state; modern history has re-discovered the humanitarian theory and litigated it ad nauseum to the point that this nation-state may end up split. The point of my writing this is that we should understand history on the terms and understandings of the day, and not write it on our own terms... where those colonialists become 'evil'. By classifying the colonialists as evil, you'll only create more racism.
From the economists point of view, Maori were meant to become workers in the economy like the many of the other settlers arriving in poor circumstances. The thought was that econoimic opportunity would allow the industrious to eventually buy land... with winners and losers in this competition. Of course, a transitional period should've been allowed from a traditional to a modern setting. This is what the reserves were meant to be... but the colonialists and economists were always too niggardly about that, and the extent and the manner is which confiscated lands were returned.The economics of it all is one thing, the political radicalization of it all is quite another~
He's wrong on "i28th October isn't about maori its about all nzers" Nu Tireni VS new Zealand. One is Sovereign one is a fraid and one enslaved all maori as "New zealanders" so matua is WRONG.
This man seems to have a very localized, "wrong view" of the Historical facts of the Treaty. The brief to Capt Hobson through Lord Normandy was clear. Britain was not interested in protection and providing Law and order unless full sovereignty was obtained. The Treaty is clear article one gave full chieftainship to the Crown. This man is not an historian!!
Why do you think all 500 chiefs signed the Maori writing, not the English writing?
Do you disagree with all Maori and non Maori historians?