Comments by "MountainMaid" (@MountainMaid238) on "1News"
channel.
-
349
-
104
-
18
-
14
-
12
-
@davethewave7248 So quoting a Ngapuhi who became religious, not surprised he was for the Treaty for 'protection against lawless pākeha'. But it is a massive reach to then INFER from this instance, that ALL Māori completely and absolutely knew what the ENGLISH treaty was referring to, despite hundreds NOT signing that one, but Te Tīriti.
You are also attempting to gaslight by saying because he was for the treaty, he and (massive leap here, watch the hamstring) other chiefs were all for it. Yes they were, but not for the same reasons the Crown were. The motivations were never the same. I've read what Nene and other chiefs have said, and because I know they don't think and feel like Pākeha/non-Māori, I'm not flavouring their words with British sensibilities the way you are.
Māori absolutely were for a treaty that allowed them to be Māori, to retain being Māori (land = being Māori, so wouldn't be giving that up anymore than plucking out an eyeball and handing that over), and have a Queen that ruled her lawless pioneers. Getting more resources through trade with the incoming flux of potentially lawless Brits? Another bonus. All that makes complete sense, until the Crown reneged. And now here we are. Don't forget historians have to use the same primary sources we all do, and if they're not careful, they may not be able to read past some of the racist, subjective or outright fictional observations ethnographers recorded. That's why it's best to use critical thinking and throw the net wider, including histories recorded by other people/sources.
So again, you haven't proven by giving direct evidence. You take one quote from a book, then radicalize it with a colonists perspective, a non-Māori perspective.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@olsaffa7679 The gravy train has always been for the Pākeha, so you must be one too since you live for their way of being. Apartheid is discrimination against race and segregating a people by it. You're using the South African example of how it was applied, it's used here too but in different ways - to assimilate. And come on, why do you think SOME Māori sold SOME land? Some of that need came out of desperation, shit was changing and they were no longer thriving off the land (colonial butchering of waterways, forest etc for development) and losing access to traditional hunting/gathering sites. If you know anything about the history of the country, you'll know that much. Stone age haha you like your colonial mindset, that statement is so boring. Like I said Matauranga and quantum mechanics are alike so stone-age that. And if the Treaty is honoured this country will thrive because the science states 'whats good for Māori is good for everyone', because indigenous ideals favour diversity of land and people, protection of land and people. If Māori thrive, we all do
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
@davethewave7248 You have to remember Dave, Māori are Iwi/hapu defined and were/are sovereign under those conditions. Fighting with other Iwi doesn't take that sovereignty away, why would it? How would it? It doesn't work that way, which is why all Iwi still own that sovereignty today. It's why northern and southern Māori, Taranaki and Waikato, are all still here in their sovereignty, and regardless of past history, ready to join all Iwi to fight against the government/Crown. To remind the Crown and all those illiterate in Te Tīriti that Māori retained their sovereignty in 1840, until today in 2024 and forever, even on Mars.
I'm educated on our country's history not through books but through living it. I know the versions through media, our education system and through my own people on the west coast of Te Ika. There is also a very distinct difference between Māori and non-Māori that I think you're unaware of, or choose to ignore - the thinking between crown and Māori are not the same. Māori are hapu/Iwi based and are sovereign in that respect,and their intelligence's stem from that framework, and the crown are colonial-minded and define the world from its own sensibilities (or lack thereof), and many historians draw their insights with the same colonial ignorance. In saying that, even if Māori were to be written about, hardly any would share all their knowledge with non-Māori - such is the ingrained mistrust since the crown instigated a treaty that they immediately broke. So you can take your privilege and your readings with you to the grave because you will not change the mind of those who live the reality of a broken treaty - their lived realities I doubt very much are on your pages.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@olsaffa7679 Well actually, the first New Zealanders were the Māori, and Britain came over and needed land and to rule her subjects already here, but had no jurisdiction and it was costing too much to try and conquer the Māori - hence the Treaty. So prior to 1840, this country indeed was Māori country. Now, because the Crown reneged on their Treaty promise, all their activities and laws should all be illegal. But they've carried on like nothing happened - and here we all are, you, me, Frank, Rajiv, Fita, Naeve, Siwa and Hawaiki dealing with the aftermath
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@davethewave7248 Can you please stop gaslighting? You're the one flavouring statements as genocide or ethnic cleansing. I'm not. I'm just stating what happened. Though if you look too hard at the facts, what happened to Taranaki Māori men, and the raping of women and children by European soldiers was abhorrent.
From the beginning, Māori and their chiefs wanted to maintain their sovereignty as declared in He Whakaputanga 1835, and later in Te Tīriti with the Te Reo Māori version being the most popular and signed document. The first article says both Rangatira and kawanatanga, so it's obvious that it's a reference to governing - kawanatanga. Because in article 2, Rangatiratanga is referenced. It's referenced as the Queen giving permission to all Māori to retain their right to their sovereignty. In the context of the article 2 itself, it makes it very clear. There's no misinterpretation, because kawanatanga is in article 1, and Rangatiratanga in article 2, seperating the two concept's within context.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@stephenc8956 Oh no lol you said the evil word: egalitarian 🤣 One of the tools of Imperialism. Egalitarianism is how you conform people to fit into boxes in order to control.
Agreed, it isn't wise to ignore the negative traits of any people - aren't you glad you didn't sprinkle your Christmas feast with mummified remains? European cannibalism.
We know that Māori were business minded and recognised that the British had created a hell hole of their own land, and desperately needed more. Māori knew this and kindly offered them haven, with interest. The interest being having the same rights as those coming.
It's a lie that we don't know why Māori signed the true treaty, Te Tīriti - we know why they signed: they wanted to continue having their own sovereignty, they also wanted the rights of British subjects, all in exchange for the Crown to govern and bring some of their people here. We know this because Māori have been complaining that that deal was breached from the very moment it was breached: which was immediately! This has always been known in Māori circles, but oppressed by mainstream up until recently.
You probably meant egalitarianism as in equal for all rather than its imperial version, but I don't think that works. What I need as a cis lactose intolerant neurodiverse woman with dense bones, would be different to a diabetic trans woman who is vegan. Our needs are vastly different and require different spectrums of support throughout health, education, society etc. No thank you egalitarianism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4