Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 11/12/17

MAORI SUICIDE RATES

The Treaty of Waitangi industry has found a new way to perpetuate itself.

They are now hearing claims that colonialism is responsible for the high incidence of suicide within the Maori community. Apparently the incidence is about 50% higher than the rate amongst the rest of the community.

As far as I am aware Colonialism ended in 1906 when NZ became a self ruling Dominion.

I find it difficult to believe that 110 years later colonialism can be having a growing effect on any part or group of society. I understand that in 1974 (43 years ago) suicide rates amongst Maori were actually low than those for the rest of the Community. Since 1974 Maori suicide rates have almost trebled.

Something has surely changed, but to blame colonialism is simplistic. Maybe we should ask, has there been a change in the way we measure the number of Maori as a proportion of our total population. Yes there has, today a Maori is someone descended from a Maori and the way that is calculated from census returns is statistical fraud.

In my opinion our appalling suicide rates reflect the massive changes in New Zealand society, especially over the last 40 years. Poverty is a terrible trap and feeling helpless contributes to many of the ills in today’s society.

Blaming something that may have happened 110 years ago is not part of the solution.

MURRAY REID,, Tuakau

The Editor (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 6/12/17)

WHAT’S GOOD FOR GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

The vitriolic attacks on Dave Witherow for telling it how it is and for expounding a few home truths reek of self interest and racism.

Fortunately many of us can pick the rorters, quislings, PCbrigaders, gravy-trainers, idiot magnets spinners and other stuffwits a mile away. Those that will not accept concrete facts instead preferring to promote untruthful rewritten history choose to be apologists treatyists and revisionists and frankly this is anti-Kiwi behaviour and has no place in New Zealand. A request go find another country to destroy with your PC vitriolic abusive aspersions if this is the best you can come up with.

“Freedom of speech’ has always been the cornerstone of our New Zealand society and opinions should be broadcast as of right – the media have an obligation as the Fourth Estate to facilitate and uphold this right.

ROB PATERSON, Tauranga

Dear Editor (Sent to the Waikato Times 3/12/17)

THE SANDY MORRISON TALE.

With leadership comes responsibility, Professor Morrison. The tale of the Treaty you trot out, while it mirrors the official line, is almost entirely false. If it is what you tell your students, you are brainwashing them.

There is no such thing as any “Treaty in English”. The piece of paper with a stroke-afflicted signature by Hobson and that of a few dozen chiefs was the second, repeat second, page of the document signed at Waikato Heads; a false treaty concocted by Hobson’s secretary, Freeman, and used solely there for an overflow of signatures. Orange was ignorant of this and much else besides. Its real significance in law must be zero.

The real treaty (in Maori) speaks of all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tireni) being granted property rights (tino rangatiratanga) over their possessions (taonga). It is inexcusable for you to claim that the modern meaning of “taonga” (“all that they hold precious including the Māori language”) applied in 1840, albeit it was Hugh Kawharu’s manipulation of words.

The chiefs ceded sovereignty (kawanatanga) completely and for ever to the Queen as their recorded words at Waitangi and at Kohimarama in 1860 make absolutely clear. In return all Maoris, including slaves, were granted the rights of British subjects: no more, no less, no special rights over forests and fisheries, while, implicitly, they got what they wanted most: protection from the French.

Your claim that a collection of petty chiefs “allowed” the Queen of the most powerful empire on earth to have “nominal and delegated authority so that she can control her people” is ludicrous nonsense. The so-called “Declaration of Independence” was a failed attempt by Busby to bring some order into chaos, civil war and slavery.

It is through tales such as yours that the treaty has become a holy cow of brown racists and their white fellow-travellers. (My apologies to Hindu readers!) That is why they squealed when Sir William called it a farce.

When Hobson, entirely legitimately, declared sovereignty over New Zealand in May 1840, the Treaty had done its job and should have become a footnote to history where it belongs.

The hard, real evidence of the day is the basis of what I tell you. Read “One Treaty, One Nation”, Chapter Two, for more details.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 1/12/17)

It is quite certain that in writing to congratulate Dave Witherow on his article - and the O.D.T for publishing it, that I'll be speaking on behalf of that majority of New Zealanders who for fear of their jobs, professional standing, "friendships" and general well-being do not similarly speak out.

This is the situation that the hard Left, in combination with the usual public apathy, has created - and, failing a general and immediate moral renaissance, it can only get worse.

George Orwell and others like him could see it building back in 1948, and anyone else with similarly unclouded vision can see that it is now coming apace.

COLIN RAWLE, Dunedin

Dear Editor (Sent to the Waikato Times and Herald 30/11/17)

RadioNZ has got its knickers in a twist in saying that Sir William Gallagher called the Treaty of Waitangi a “fraud”. He didn’t. He called it a “farce” It is not that either but the way it is so widely treated as a holy cow in New Zealand today would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.

He is wrong though, in saying that our Polynesians were not called “Maoris” before 1850. While the term Maori did not occur in Hobson’s final draft of the Treaty of 4th February, it was inserted once in Article third by the Williams during their translation on the night of 4/5th February. This article, conferring equal rights on them with the people of England, did not apply to existing British subjects whereas Article second, guaranteeing property rights applied to all the people of New Zealand.

What the treaty really said does not stop racists today claiming special rights. The latest to be careless with the truth is Tauranga activist Graham Cameron with saying: “the special relationship between the Crown and New Zealand's indigenous people set out in the Treaty of Waitangi was the foundation for Maori wards.” (NZ Herald, BOP Times, 26/11/17).

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Dear Editor (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 28/11/17)

Over recent decades it has become rare indeed for any branch of the mainstream news media to give give any exposure to views which beg to differ from those "approved" by the unwritten dictates of neo-Marxist, anti-Western "political correctness".

Therefore the Otago Daily Times is to be heartily congratulated for its bravery in publishing Dave Witherow's honest, truthful and therefore anti-establishment article on the Maori language delirium, ( 24/11/17 ) .

However, the central issue is not the Maori language - no one is "frightened" of Te Reo, ( as one brainwashed journalist put it ) or of anything else Maori.

The real, and well founded concern of the ignored majority of New Zealanders is the now blatant and obvious "divide and destroy" agenda of the hard Left with regard to anything vaguely racial.

How many of the protagonists involved in this ridiculous issue know that scores ( at least ) of European languages have become extinct in the course of history ?

Let us not forget that even the mighty Roman empire, the dominant and leading civilisation of the then known world, has, together with its language ( Latin), passed away. How many past civilisations, races, and languages have synthesised and evolved to become the modern language and culture we know as English? And this too shall pass, "in its season".

Ideally, the demise of ancient cultures and languages would be neither hastened nor prolonged, but be allowed to pass in dignity and gratitude and not be kept artificially alive as humiliating caricatures of their former reality.

Where any real understanding of such matters remains it is known that it's the fruits of the past we carry forward with us into the future, not the trappings. Sadly, the ( part ) Maori malcontents and their white sycophants have no wish to arrive at the truth, they only wish to win the argument.

All that was true and beautiful in past civilisations and cultures, including that of the Maori, we carry on with us as qualities of soul.

Nothing of true worth is ever irretrievably lost. Thus mankind progresses.

COLIN RAWLE, Dunedin

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 13/11/17)

In his outgoing speech many years ago, Lord Bledisloe, Governor General said: “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and he that does not know his own country is at the mercy of every lying windbag”. Doesn’t that sound familiar? There seems to be quite a few of those about now!

In more recent days, Marama Davidson said: “It is essential that Aotearoa (just where is that?) honour its history, and that we educate our children about the injustices of our past”. Absolutely!

I am reliably informed that Aotearoa simply means “Long White Cloud,” and that is where the future of New Zealand will be if the true history is not told.

It is to be hoped that our new Government will allow legislation to pass that will enable archaeologists to examine the 105 embargoed sites, plus some, if not all, of the 4000 sites from North Cape to Bluff that could shine some light onto our true history.

Who was responsible for the rock drawings of Otago, the hierogliphs on rocks at Raglan, the Jesus watch, the stone walls and buildings in the Waipoua Forest, the ancient wooden ship which lies in dense bush about two miles from the coast in South Westland/West Otago, among many other relics from the past?

These questions demand answers!

KEVAN G. MARKS, Kaipara.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Herald on Sunday before 19/11/17)

Paul Little's Opinion piece equates culture with the arts and entertainment. Whether you support opera or kapa haka is one of choice. What the unnamed journalist he quotes so rightly points out is Maori culture and superstitions are given special recognition and rights in legislation such as the Resource Management Act, Local Bodies Act, the Marine and Coastal Areas Act, etc. No recognition is accorded to Pakeha culture and Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi grants equality of citizenship but special recognition is not equality. To give the Maori world view a status superior to anyone else's world view is a denial of the democratic principle of democracy as a form of government in which all eligible citizens are able to participate equally.

Equality used to be just that; equality. Treating everyone equally, alike.

These days it is not that at all. Equality now means discrimination disguised as ideals; it means preferential treatment for special interest groups especially Maori. Promoters of these ideas are not interested in equality but rather recognition of inequality.

No person should be disadvantaged for having a different skin colour, nor should any person be advantaged for exactly the same reason.

RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northland Star, approx 3/11/17)

Associate Professor Claire Charters from the Auckland University School of Law has been awarded a Rutherford Scholarship to support her next five years of research. She intends to look at how rights of indigenous peoples around the world are accommodated or addressed. Well done Professor Charters!

Dr Charters says New Zealand has some of the weakest legal protections for its indigenous people of any constitutional structure. I will go one further and say that it offers none whatsoever. The Patupairarehe, Waitaha, or Turehu people, who were among the very first settlers to New Zealand, were here perhaps one thousand years before Maori. These people were decimated by the later arrivals.

Professor Charters says while the Treaty of Waitangi is only enforceable when it is written into legislation, it can carry political weight. It should carry no more weight than to offer all people equal citizenship with each other as New Zealanders. She asks will a written constitution offer Maori more protection? No, it should not offer any more than equal rights to all New Zealand citizens! Perhaps Professor Charters can tell me what the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi are?

Nobody else can. I would like to know!

If we are to have a new constitution, let us go back to Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of November 26, 1840, and bring that up to date as necessary.

KAWENA HORI MAAKA, (Kevan George Marks), Kaipara.

Dear Editor, (Sent to The Press 26/10/17)

Just like the Governor-General, your editorial (26th October) has fallen for the crude falsehood that there is any “partnership”, “future-focussed” or otherwise, between the Crown/government and any Maori. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Waitangi or anywhere else to support this constitutional absurdity, which is based on an ill-judged remark by judge Robin Cooke in exceeding his brief. The Treaty guaranteed Maoris the same rights as all other New Zealanders – no more, no less – and it is high time that responsible newspaper editors acknowledged this and sought to eliminate all forms of racist privilege.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Listener 28/9/17)

The arithmetic of power

Your claim that Winston Peters has 100% of the power is superficial and wrong.

In the first place, whatever power he appears to have is much less that 100% and it is transitory. Again, if National were to ally with the Greens - unlikely but possible - all of Peters' "power" would disappear in an instant.

You appear to have forgotten that for some years immediately prior to the recent election,, the Maori Party with less than 2% of the popular vote, had a very great deal of power, leading amongst other things to the flagrant racist preference for Maoris in the amended Resource Management Act, desperately pushed through by the National Party government.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor (Sent to the Waikato Times 22/9/17)

Tom O'Connor in his reply to Chris Lee (Waikato Times 22/9/17) endeavors to deflect criticism by claiming that James Cowan's historical accounts are questionable.

James Cowan is the definitive historian on the NZ Wars. He was brought up on the old Waipa frontier and learn much from talking with Maori chiefs and warriors as well as European settlers. He spoke fluent Maori. He tramped miles to visit battle sites and sought out veterans of the Wars, both Maori and European,women as well as men, to learn first hand much of what doesn't appears in official documents. No historian ancient or modern can claim his credentials.

If I had to choice between the opinion of some modern-day historical revisionist and James Cowan's account, I'll back Cowan's account every day.

RICHARD PRINCE, Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 14/9/17)

Once upon a time there was a Maori language but academics thought they knew better and set about changing it. Why? Hon Pita Sharples had this to say on One News at 6.00, “The Treaty is in our language and if it’s in our language we can make it mean anything we want it to “. Which I take to mean, “Te Reo cannot be translated”. How could it be trustfully translated if you can make it to mean “anything you want it to”.

Why would academics want to murder “their language”.

Even so, Te Reo is still composed of bastardised English and Gaelic in attempt to expand a seriously restricted communication mode for the simplest of words.

The language has been murdered by academics to such an extent it doesn’t even sound like the original, statically rhythmed pre-Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi era.

So sad to know this treasure’s confiscated. Why did we need Te Reo when what we had was adequate and sounded far superior.

IAN BROUGHAM , Tawhero

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZHerald 13/9/17)

Shane Te Pou’s claim that at Rangiaowhia ‘Māori were pursued as prey’ falsifies history. In one participant’s description: ‘With many Maori civilians, men and women, running away, Captain Wilson called to the women in Maori to sit down to avoid the risk of being shot. They obeyed, and we passed them; then they got up and ran on.’ In the words of Maori boy Potatau who later told his full story: ‘The European went inside of the house. My grandfather shot him and killed him. Some of the others dragged the body in the house. At this time my mother and self arose and went through the soldiers and between the troopers. They did not interfere with us, but allowed us to pass. We went to the house of Thomas Power, who had a Maori woman to wife. After we left we heard the soldiers firing. ... [After] the firing had ceased[, w]e at once left the place and ran off to the bush’.

Again, Te Pou’s claim of a ‘settler invasion of the Waikato’ is nonsense. Waikato tribes planned seriously to destroy Auckland. The Waikato was British sovereign territory so government troops under the direction of Governor Grey took appropriate action to quell the tribes’ rebellion.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 5/9/17)

Peter Carey (ODT 4/9/17) is disingenuous in attacking Dr Muriel Newman’s factual article about freshwater. She advocates for this fundamental necessity of life to remain a public resource, managed by impartial, elected government for the benefit of all Kiwis (and not just those with some Maori ancestry).

In stark contrast, Mr Carey supports privatisation so that the greedy and power hungry can exercise control over the economy and the population, while charging exorbitant sums for rights to use it.

While some regional summer shortages suggest that the current system could do with a tidy up, his complaints are farcical. He says that existing freshwater resource consents of 35 years are too long, whereas he’d be quite happy to give ‘control’ to the tribal elite in perpetuity.

Concern for the health and availability of our waters is not a race-based issue, felt only by those with Maori bloodlines. That’s just absurd. It’s an issue for all New Zealanders and not one which would be fixed by privatisation. That would be a recipe for disaster.

Carey’s spin is that Maori are more honourable and environmentally conscious than all other New Zealanders. Well that is one claim that certainly isn’t supported by fact or even observation! As one example, it only took approximately 120,000 Maori to make the moa and about 33 other species extinct under their “guardianship”, well prior to British colonisation.

Water isn’t and must never become a race-based entitlement.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun/Sunlive 2/9/17)

P Dey (Weekend Sun,1/9/17) would have us believe the tales of our “professional historians” but regrettably the best that can be said for most of them is that they are careless with the truth. In a short letter one cannot give details but some of them are A Salmond, C Orange, J Kelsey, M Mutu, P Moon and H Kawharu who have made blatantly false statements about the Treaty of Waitangi while J Phillips and V O’Malley have written grossly distorted accounts of General Cameron’s humane occupation of Rangiaowhia.

Although P Dey himself on 12/2/16 stated in the “Bay of Plenty Times” the brazen falsehood that the book “Twisting the Treaty” (ISBN 1-872970-33-8) has been “totally discredited”, it contains a wealth of information about our true history and deviations by “professional historians” from it. My own article in the second issue of “New Zealand Voice” (March 2017), based on the accounts of participants on both sides, tells the true story of Rangiaowhia. John Robinson’s book “The Kingite Rebellion” (ISBN 1-875970-486) gives an excellent account of the gross provocations by the Waikato tribes which led to their rebellion, ultimately suppressed with some confiscation of land in accordance with Maori tikanga.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

DearSir/Madam (Sent to the NZ Herald 4/8/17)

Over the past couple of weeks we have had the Greens co- leader Winz circus, the Labour leader has thrown in the towel now the Auditor General has quit and recently we had the National Party MP employment mess with police involved.

We still have the Treaty Minister spewing out settlements and abject apologies willy nilly now being caught short along with ex PM when stating there would be very few Marine and Coastal (MACA ) claims -well sorry they are coming out his ears.Then there are the continuing and increasing departmental type money frauds , regular school ripoffs not to mention the secret squirrel meetings to blindside the public .

What is wrong with this damn country it looks to be rotting from the head down !!

ROB PATERSON, Mount Maunganui

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 21/7/17)

Waitangi Day has been celebrated on February 6, for 77 years as we are “now one people”. Since when? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to celebrate this for a change?

We are now to “celebrate” the so-called Land Wars on October 26 this year, thanks to a $4 million handout by the Government, and the blessing of MP Te Ururoa Flavell, for the next 4 years. Did the Government of the day write down the reasons for these wars, and are these letters still in existence? If not, why not?

Let us celebrate the ceasing of cannabilism, slavery and warfare (the musket wars) which killed some 2000 Maori, 1000 peacekeeping soldiers and friendly Maori, and 40,000 Maori, wiped out by (wait for it) Maori!

Anna Broad (Northern Advocate, July 17, among much else), states that the Government needs to honour the peacekeeping of the soldiers. They won’t, because that is what has kept the National Government in power for the past 9 years.

Leo Leitch (Northern Advocate) states that we should change Waitangi Day back to New Zealand Day.

I have challenged our historians, archaeologists, Members of Parliament, and the Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, to delve into our true history. So far, I have had no takers!

I move that we scrap Waitangi Day and the Land Wars Day, and celebrate New Zealand Independence Day on November 16, the day Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter gave us our independence from the New South Wales Government in 1840. Do I have a seconder?

KEVAN G. MARKS, Kaipara.

The Editor (Sent to the Weekend Sun 9/7/17

RODENT DEODORANT

These days roll-on deodorants often tend to be sold in nondescript dispensers and it looks like there is great potential for reformatting the local deodorant dispensers to appeal to the masses along the lines of a recent UK initiative.

Rodent Deodorant would use roll-on bottles designed to resemble various urban woodland and bush creatures like rodents and mustelids such as rats (kiore), weasels, ferrets, hamsters and stoats. The roller ball (the point where the deodorant hits the skin) would represent the nose end of the pest with the dispenser shaped like the creature in question to give realism.

There seems little doubt that these deodorants could prove to be a huge success, built around the catchphrase "smell a rat? then use Rodent Deodorant!"

Trust me, this product may have real potential and will be warmly embraced by those Kiwis (the so called irrelevant majority) disaffected by current Government ,Local Bodies and Quangos hi-jinks/antics/rorts, potentially feeling a lot better after expressing and sanatizing themselves in the manner aforesaid.

Using Rodent Deodorant would be a symbolic gesture to themselves along the lines of 'The Empire Strikes Back' and a timely pungent wake up call all is not kosher in the various political arenas.

ROB PATERSON, Matapihi

Dear Editor (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 6/7/17)

I will stick to the facts rather than attempt to shut down free speech as Peter Moeahu does (letters 6/7/17), nor will I denigrate those holding different points of view as the Taranaki Daily News did in the titling of the same letter.

The only relationship referred to in the Treaty between Crown and Maori was in Article 2; it covered the selling of Maori land to the Crown only, to protect Maori vendors. Any other relationship has been created by revisionists.

The Treaty agreed that all people living in this land would have the same rights as British citizens. It certainly didn’t create separate rights for tribes, such as unelected and unacccountable representation in local governments.

One has to thank Moeahu for highlighting the fact that only Maori has an alternative way of holding governments to account, other than via general elections. It’s a pity that this power is only used for tribal-based advantage through the extremely biased Waitangi Tribunal.

If Whangarei were to aspire to the same racism in local government as New Plymouth, it would be a sad day for Northland and democracy. I understand 83% of New Plymouth voters rejected this ‘fabulous level’ of racism in 2015.

A binding nationwide referendum on separatist Maori wards and corruptible race-based appointments is well over due.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle, date unknown)

In 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established it was soon found that it was very difficult to establish Treaty claims using the full English and maori texts of the Treaty of Waitangi or the “official” translations.

It was decided, by the lawyer led Labour Government and Maoridom after 10 years or so of struggling to prove a claim and behind closed doors and without public debate, to create five “made to order” Principles for Crown action on the Treaty. Although these principles bear little if any resemblance to the Treaty of Waitangi the treaty has no Principles, they were very quickly accepted into law are now solely interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Treaty is not a legal document but the five “Principles” are the basis for most legislation and treaty claims today.

We feel they were brought about by a Court of Appeal using an “unofficial” Treaty document.

They are a fraud and are not, and never have been part of the Treaty document.

IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 10/4/17)

During the week the National Party and the 2 Maori Party Members managed to get a piece of legislation through.

The iwi clauses would entrench co-governance and partnership obligations with iwi maori into local government creating a constitutional change.

The treaty train is headed towards its ultimate goal maori sovereignty through constitutional change and everything that can mean with regards to ultimate power where they will put in a new constitution based on the Bolivian constitution. In Bolivia your house and car will be confiscated, you will then be paying 50/50 rent to the government and maori for the use of your house and car. And the installation of tribal law (not indigenous law, as in universal) each tribe having the power to establish its own laws within its own area even although a tribe might consist of as little as 40 members, no appeal is allowed against their descisions.

We are getting more and more apartheid laws from this National government and most of the people don’t care until its to late

IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero

Dear Editor (Sent to Sunlive / Weekend Sun 12/6/17)

The soothing words in the article ‘Hauraki Maori apply for Customary Rights’ (8/6/17) deserve further discussion.

Under common law the foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown, but a rogue Court of Appeal Court decision raising the possibility of Maori customary rights to the coastline triggering a tsunami of opportunistic Maori claims. As a result, the Labour Government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, reaffirming Crown ownership to benefit all, but still allow Maori claims through the High Court.

This was not a ‘highly contentious’ law and few tribes bothered to lodge claims.

The article states in one paragraph “safeguards the rights of the general public, who will continue to have legal access to all coastal and marine areas”, this to be contradicted in an earlier paragraph “If granted, a marine title would allow a group to ‘protect’ wahi tapu” (ban the public)?.

Just by registering, tribal groups pick up important rights to be notified of any developments in their claimed area, and can get paid mining royalties (backdated to the lodgement of claim) if their claim is approved.

Some lodged claim applications seek the right to ‘take’ dolphins and whales, penguins and seals, mine the area for minerals and extract sand – free reign to exploit our coasts!

All claims should be vigorously opposed.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Dear Sir, (Sent to Sunlive 7/6/17

Not a word of P.Dey's letter ( Sunlive, 26/5 ) in response to B. Moon's realism re' compensation for Maori land "wrongfully taken" was correct or even sensible. The following excerpt is taken from an old article on the matter.

To Maori of the time, loss of largely unused land was more significant as a loss of Mana than anything else. Only later, and as a result of European colonisation, technology and hard work did land begin to assume its economic potential and value.

While the intrinsic aesthetic, spiritual, and ecological value of land for all peoples is obvious, it only acquired economic value in the modern sense, in New Zealand, through

the advent of colonisation.

The purely economic value of unmodified land to primitive societies rests soley upon what naturally occurring resources a hunter / gatherer could glean from it. Its modern economic value depends upon what it can produce under skilled human stewardship. Thus the economic value of natural raw materials in the earth, be they minerals, oil, gold, timber or whatever, is relative to the knowledge and technology required to locate, recognise, extract, process, and utilise them. Natural resources of any kind do not acquire economic value until human beings transform them into useful commodities by dint of their intelligence and industry.

Land grievances would not be such an effective weapon of the Maori activists if it was understood that loss of land per sec was not such an economic disadvantage to them as they claim. Obviously, economic advantage cannot accrue from land until it is managed to economic ends. Similarly, economic disadvantage can only result from land lost or sold to the extent that it was, or would have been economically worked.

To this very day a significant proportion of Maori land is under utilised in the economic sense, or is leased to others to who manage to their economic benefit.

In cases where Maori land was eventually worked by them in post colonial times to their own economic advantage, this too only became possible by virtue of social / economic circumstances resulting from European civilisation.

One way or another Europeans had to take possession of large enough areas of productive land so as to be in a position to create the beginnings of a domestic economy and eventually a modern democratic nation.

It is not necessary for Maori, or anyone else to actually possess land to share in the bounty it produces in the hands of skilled, hard working people. As social order gradually began to establish itself, desired commodities could be procured by trade, or money could be earned to purchase goods and services.

The apparently deep anguish of Maori over loss of land is largely theatre, a strategy in the cause of the real aim, which is all about political power and becoming a socio / political elite served by the "Tauiwi".

Strictly speaking land, ( an everlasting thing ) should not be owned by any person, (a transient thing ); but it should always be controlled by those who can make the best use of it for both themselves and society as a whole.

To those with such a proper attitude towards land the question of its ownership would be far less pertinent than its role as a provider of required consumer products and employment...........

COLIN RAWLE. Dunedin

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Weekend Sun 5/6/17)

P Dey is at it again with his nonsense claim that “the value of land wrongfully taken from Maori by past governments is more than $30 billion.” and in W Parish he appears to have made himself one recruit (Sunlive, 26/5/17)

As everybody knows, north of about Kaikoura, the Pre-European tribes had kumara to supplement their meagre diet obtained from hunter-gathering. The speed with which they adopted the potato and the quantities they consumed indicate clearly the vast improvement in diet European foods offered them – who sees fernroot on supermarket shelves these days?

With these dramatic changes, much land became surplus to Maori needs and they almost fell over themselves in their eagerness to exchange it for European material goods, with some land sold two or three times over by different claimants. “Stolen”, Mr Dey? Stop deluding yourself.

Whether that land is worth $30 billion today is utterly beside the point. It was sold for what it was worth at the time. Governor Fitzroy, not our most successful governor, did get it exactly right on this point: "What is it that makes land valuable? It is labour … in addition to the price of the land it is for bringing out labourers, and tools, and seeds, and cattle, in ships; for … roads, and bridges, and surveys, and many other things. The payment for the land only is very small.”

BRUCE MOON Nelson

Dear Editor (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 1/6/17)

DUNNE DEAL

So Mr.Dunne Minister of InternalAffairs sees no problem with shifting the historic Treaty from Archives 100metres down the road to the NationalLibrary at a removal cost of $155,000 - $20,000 of that was spent on a lavish breakfast for the 560 “secret” viewers/invitees at PipiteaMarae based on maori tikanga‘kai’principle - general catering of $2255 plus translators payment of $4564 then another $3,600 KOHA payment.

Well what about the other $7million Mr.Dunne just spell out exactly how that is to be applied, to make the NationalLibrary fit for purpose to house this historical relic. In that regard a recent signed letter from two (2) well respected former ChiefArchivists is a damning indictment of what has gone on and questions the rationale and possibly the legality of moving the thing from its natural and proper home at Archives, where it was safely housed and on full public display.

Mr.Dunne, clearly you have lost the plot you are out of your depth, out of touch, out of order and hopefully in September2017 out of office! Your recent unhinged outburst about a pamphlet promoting equality and lambasting race-based policies shows exactly where you stand and your manic state of mind about justified criticism.

ROB PATERSON Matapihi

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 27/5/17)

Article 3 of S Noel Jory’s (RDP 27/5/17) revered 1840 Treaty introduced British common law. Since under British law, “the sea from high water mark to a point three miles out belongs to the crown”, therefore from 1840 on, New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed (F&S) was deemed to be in crown ownership and any customary rights to these resources were extinguished by the Treaty. This was clearly affirmed in the 1963 Court of Appeal Ninety Mile Beach case ruling.

If Maori thought they owned the F&S, then most Treaty of Waitangi claims would have included it, none did.

The F&S is not treated the same as dry land, even in Maori lore, ownership is established by Ahi Ka (fires of occupation), it would require a resourceful Maori to accomplish Ahi Ka in the F&S area.

The very name Maori LAND Court indicates that it should have no jurisdiction over the F&S tidal area.

Under the F&S Act 2004 Maori were not denied their legal rights to take a case to Court as Jory infers, however something as important as the F&S should be heard in the High Court, not lesser courts, or in direct negotiation with a government Minister as is the case now.

Mike McVicker (20/5/17) is correct saying "the biggest resource grab in the country's history", perhaps only to be surpassed by the upcoming freshwater grab by opportunist tribes and their supporting self servng European sycophants.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NBR 21/5/17)

Michael Cootes' article (19/5/17) raised the freshwater issue which should be of great concern to all New Zealanders. The iwi Leaders Freshwater Group has been working on this matter since 2007.

The Government’s stance on freshwater is that no-one owns water, instead they have passed responsibility to capitulating regional councils and unitary authorities who are meeting with the tribes behind closed doors right now.

This is huge. Water is life. We can't do without it.

The foreshore and seabed although serious enough is nothing in comparison to this nationwide hijack by elite Maori with the support of radical bureaucrats and appeasing self-serving politicians.

The Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group wants:

* Transfer of title to all Crown-owned river and lake beds and title to the water column above to regional tribal groups,

* title in fresh water consistent with Waitangi Tribunal rulings,

* guaranteed allocation of fresh water for all marae and marae housing, as well as free water infrastructure for maraes and marae housing,

* tribal participation at all levels of fresh water decision-making,

* a $1-billion fund of public money to build the capacity of tribes to implement fresh water management and control,

* tribal involvement in resource consents or an allocation of tradeable water rights.

My fellow New Zealanders, we are on a very dangerous path.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Dear editor, (Sent to the Nelson Mail 20/5/17)

Gary Clover’s new twist to the meaning of Hobson’s words “He iwi tahi tatou’ (9/5/17) indicates how desperate he is to undermine the Hobson’s Pledge noble campaign.

Likewise, his addition of a “fourth article” to the Maori language Treaty that was signed by about 500 chiefs, this three article document can be seen here http://tinyurl.com/lwh4zkf

His statement of missionaries understanding that the Treaty was primarily about controlling a handful European settlers, one only has to read what Reverend John Warren wrote to see how laughable that is, “the natives were at that time in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when they placed the British lion between themselves and the French eagle”....”

Lastly, Clover inferred that sovereignty was ‘not over the entire country’, one only has to take into account Warren’s notes above along with the chief’s speeches prior to signing the TOW, which can be read here http://tinyurl.com/kq7qyye, to see how farcical that is.

GEOFF PARKER Whangarei

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 7/5/17)

It is cause for some optimism that more and more politically incorrect and free-thinking people are now bravely going public to point out that New Zealand's treaty industry is completely out of control.

But, truth to tell it, always has been - ever since the infamous Waitangi Tribunal jack-up ( which was simply a part of the programme ).

The whole sorry business is an expression of the sort of racial prejudice which "dare not speak its name" - namely, anti "white" racism from white, pseudo "liberals" themselves. To be racially prejudiced towards own race or civilisation is not only possible it is almost universal among the indoctrinated Left.

The blatantly racist, separatist and supremist agenda of the part- Maori con' artists would have made zero progress without the constant and long standing, ( nearly two centuries ) of subversive activism by their anti-Western, neo-marxist patrons.

There no appreciable difference between ( real ) Christianity and Enlightenment values ; and when everything is boiled down and the last poisonous bubble has evaporated, the only remnants will be the withered corpses of these two foundations of civilised society.

COLIN RAWLE. Dunedin

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 27/4/17)

There is no excuse for the government and people such as Attorney General Chris Finlayson and leading Constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Palmer, the man trusted to write a new Constitution ignoring Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/ Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840. Surely they are not that ignorant of how new Zealand separated from New South Wales and became an independent British Colony with its own political, legal and justice systems. They must know the treaty o Waitangi only placed New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales from the 21 May until the 3 May 1841, just 12 months.

The Government, including Te Papa and our new Governor General , dame Patsy Reddy should know better than to refer to the Treaty o Waitangi as our “Founding Document” and :Partnership between Maori and the Crown” . Te Papa, our national Museum refusing to display Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter.

While the Treaty of Waitangi gave Britian sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand and tangata maori, “the same rights as the people of England “ it was not our founding Document. It was an “agreement not a partnership between tangata Maori and Queen Victoria.

After each tangata Maori chief signed the treaty on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi Lt. Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated the words “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” Tangata Maori became British Subjects and British Subjects cannot be in partnership with the Queen or the Monarchy.

IAN BROUGHAM, Tawhero

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 22/4/17)

Peter Rochford’s (22/417) esteemed Waitangi Tribunal is a pro-Maori lobby group that can only make recommendations. Unfortunately this handful of un-elected tribunal members have the exclusive authority to interpret the Treaty to suit agendas.

A Ngapuhi elder David Rankin had this to say about these so-called pillars of society, “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along, it is a bully. go against it, and you will be labelled a racist or worse. It has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand.”

Brian Priestley MBE said “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth"

Dr Giselle Byrnes said. “Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause."

Other notable historians who have questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal are Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, Bill Oliver and Michael Bassett.

An increasing number of New Zealanders are now questioning the transfer of wealth to Maori elite often on the unchallenged findings of this biased tribunal.

To my knowledge no outsider is permitted to attend hearings or have any input into these claims, only the opportunist claimants, the Waitangi Tribunalists and the conflict of interest ex Ngai Tahu lawyer Chris Finlayson for the Crown. Fait accompli you might say.

GEOFF PARKER, Whangarei

To The Editor (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 22/4/17)

Peter Rochford letters to the editor Wanganui Chronicle (22.4.2017) and his criticism of John Robinson needs to be questioned.

Mr. Rochford mentions, if a false story is repeated often enough people will believe it and most of us new Zealanders know this is how the Waitangi Tribunal operates.

Most of us New Zealanders are aware of this therefore the stinging criticism of the Waitangi Tribunal from members of the public.

If your criticism of Mr. Robinson was based on fact and substance your argument would be believed but is unfortunately short on both.

Again Mr. Rochford you mention about the government appointed experts to the Tribunal and again one has to question that statement also.

One has to only look at the decisions coming out of the Waitangi Tribunal.

The government makes a lot of mistakes and some time they may be able cover them up but in the case of the Tribunal they cannot.

Do I need to say any more?

MIKE LALLY, Te Puke

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 18/4/17)

Bill Simpson (“News”, 18/4/17), is wrong. I make one thing very clear to all readers. When Maori immigrants arrived, there were people here, some known as Ngati Hotu, with distinctive DNA. Again, our country is New Zealand - “Nu Tirani” in the Treaty. “Aotearoa” is only one of many names for the North Island.

He is also wrong in claiming that “In almost all cases Maori receive less than 2 per cent (if that) of the true loss of their lands”. The rough, unimproved land, most of which they sold eagerly, was worth about what they were paid for it. In Taranaki some land was paid for three times over to different claimants, as he ought to know. If he doesn’t he should refer to the July 1860 address by Ihaia Kirikumara and Tamati Tiraurau to the settlers of New Plymouth.

Nor were Maoris denied “their right to build an economy of their own”. The British model would have been rather better than the previous slave-based economy. Has he conveniently forgotten the devastation of Taranaki by Waikato tribes who were never asked to come, a few years before 1840, when 1300 at Pukerangiora were killed and eaten and a similar number enslaved and made to carry tattooed heads back to the Waikato heartlands?

Bill Simpson should also reflect that without a settler forebear named Simpson, he would not even be here. Time for him to “get real” eh?

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 10/4/17)

It is always entertaining to read Tommy Kapai's column (10 April) particularly when he is in his history revision mode. In his opinion piece on Whakamarama it is interesting how he avoids mentioning facts which don't help his narrative.

He fails to mention that the Pirirakau were Hauhaus and followers of the Pai Marire religious cult which believed that chants would ward off bullets. Other practices included decapitations, the removal of the hearts of enemy soldiers, and cannibalism.

He also fails to mention that the attack on Whakamarama was mainly by Te Arawa who were loyal to the Crown and had an intense dislike of the Hauhau movement. Has an apology been asked of Te Arawa, I wonder?

He claims that 290,000 acres of Tauranga land was confiscated but omits to mention that 240,000 acres was returned also with help in the form of seed and tools.

Tommy should be reminded that being able to write a column for the BOP Times is privilege and it should not be used as vehicle for parading half-truths which can only but poison the well of race relations.

RICHARD PRINCE, Welcome Bay

Kapai’s column here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11835115

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 30/3/17

So Peter Dey now accepts (BOP Times 30 March) that the claim of people being burnt to death in a church at Rangiaowhia is wrong (It is to be hoped that Dame Susan Devoy will accept this too). Why then should we have any more faith in his other assertions.

He claims Rangiaowhia was undefended. Really! I can’t wait for him to claim that the British soldiers that were killed there shot themselves. Rangiaowhia was a supply village supplying food to the Kingite Garrisons. I find it unbelievable that anybody would consider a village fulfilling that role in the Wars could in some way be a sanctuary for women and children.

Sound war practice is to cut off supplies to the enemy and that is why Cameron attacked Rangiaowhia. His success was the beginning of the end of the Wars.

The definitive historian of the NZ Wars is James Cowan. He spoke fluent Maori, he tramped to the battle sites, he interviewed veterans both Maori and British and named them. Vincent O’Malley can in no way match his credentials.

RICHARD PRINCE, Welcome Bay

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 24/3/17

On reading the letter from Peter Dey this morning I am confused. The

information about the whare being burnt with seven Maori and Sergeant

McHale has never been in dispute.

It was the original untrue statement by Susan Devoy of the "atrocity"

that women and children were locked in a church by Crown soldiers and

set alight which was the crux of the whole argument.

It never happened!

ROBIN BISHOP. Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 18/3/17)

Messrs Day, Eriwhata and Keenan (Stuff, 18/3/17) certainly cherry-pick and distort our history. They have conveniently forgotten that the only “Land Wars” were amongst Maori tribes before 1840 when 1300 Taranaki tribesmen were killed and eaten in a single action at Pukerangiora. Compare this with 2200 killed in the entire period of the tribal rebellions subsequently. South Taranaki was almost deserted.

Hostilities in Taranaki largely arose through fights over who owned what between returning slaves and refugees post-1840 when it was safe to do so. Some land was bought from different claimants three times. Settlers suffered in the rebellions – 177 farmsteads being destroyed in twelve-months. Land confiscations were not wholesale and were to pay in part for the cost of suppressing the rebellions.

Kelvin Day is the man who wrote to me that “there is no such thing as one true history”. Well, oddly enough, there is one – the record of what actually happened. Then there is false history such as the lie that there was no cannibalism of the shipwrecked crew of the “Harriet” promulgated by himself. Again, Parihaka was the base of a nasty cult, not a haven of peace. So is our history twisted.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northland Age 14/3/17)

Your pale-faced part-Maori correspondent, Herbert-Graves continues to babble on with her make-believe in your columns yet again, I see. (14/3/17) Her statement that “Rangatiratanga was always about looking after Papatuanuka” is rubbish it would be hard to beat. She can keep her pagan belief in “Papatuanuka” if she wants to since religious tolerance is the New Zealand way, but “rangatiratanga” was just a missionary-coined word for the right of possession of property – for “weaklings” said Te Rauparaha to whom, in the tribal tradition or “tikanga”, possession was by force of arms.

As for her kaitiakitanga before 1840, it was estimated by Dr Tim Flannery that pre-European Maoris were responsible for the extinction of between 28 and 35 species of birds and destruction of about one third of New Zealand’s forest cover. Subsequently seven to nine species have become extinct - deeply regrettable but not solely due to Europeans. It is recorded that Maoris killed 646 huia in a single month. Plunder of moa led to their extinction within a century and the archaeological evidence is that only the choice cuts were eaten, the rest going to waste.

Today, muttonbirds, plentiful in the Bluff of my youth, have been hunted by Ngai Tahu to the point of commercial extinction. As for our beautiful native pigeons, senior Ngapuhi tribesman Sonny Tau, justly convicted of the possession of five corpses, has set the example. It has been reckoned that at the present rate of poaching in Northland, it will be extinct there within a decade or two.

One ray of hope was a pigeon census on Banks Peninsula on the initiative of local Ngai Tahu in which I personally took part. I invite Herbert-Graves to do the hard yards of tramping through sodden bush herself on some genuine conservation work.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 11/3/17)

You invite replies to your editorial on 11/3/17. Here is mine.

After the skirmish at Rangiaowhia, the churches were intact – the stained glass in the English church “entire” with two officers using the Catholic church as their billet. The claim that one was burnt with women and children inside, vigorously promulgated by Ngati Apakura today, is a dastardly lie concocted soon afterwards by rebels furious at being completely outwitted by General Cameron.

One whare was burned, not ten as Green claimed. As rebel leader Wiremu Tamihana himself said: “There was only one house burnt; that was the house where the Maoris died. I went there and saw it.”. That would never have happened if foolish old chief Hoani Papita had not shot dead Sergeant McHale when asked to surrender. As it was, a lad, Potatau, and his parents escaped from it unharmed while ten who remained died in the subsequent firefight, including two daughters of Kereopa who swallowed the eyes of missionary Volkner. Elsewhere only two rebels were killed.

Subsequently Potatau himself gave an account of his own experiences which tallies almost exactly with other reports. That, briefly, is the truth.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor., (Sent to the Otago Daily Times 9/3/17)

In the ODT for 9/3/17, Jeff Leenhoouwers talks of “affirming our commitment as a nation to the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Since in essence, all that was agreed in the treaty was that the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever, with all Maoris becoming fully-entitled British subjects, one does wonder what is the value in affirming our commitment to it at this late stage.

The treaty indeed affirmed equality for all. There is simply nothing in it to grant any Maori any privilege, concession or advantage, material or otherwise - fishing rights being one example - whichis not shared equally with everybody else. That being so, it is high time for a great array of special privileges from Whanau Ora to Maori seats in Parliament to be swept away, completely and for ever,

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear editor, (Sent to the Whangarei Leader 2/3/17)

Re ‘Kiwis ‘oblivious’ to our own history’ 1/3/17 which raves on about ‘Maori history’ as if it is veritable fact, which it is not, much of this oral history can be easily disputed by written records of people that were living at the time.

What we need taught in our schools is true history warts and all, our young and not so young are being brainwashed that colonisation was evil – and Maori were saints.

Yes approx 2,200 anti government Maori and approx 800 British soldiers, settlers and pro-government Maori lost their lives in skirmishes (could hardly be called a war) over a period of 26 years, that was initially instigated by Maoris infighting over the selling of land in Taranaki.

A prime example of twisted history: General Cameron rode into Rangioawhia, near Te Awamutu, on February 24, 1864, rounded up all the Maori, locked them in a church, set fire to it, and anybody that tried to escape was shot, and up to 144 Maori were burnt to death.

The truth is that for many years afterwards all the churches in the village were still standing!

Total casualties on both sides did not exceed about 20, thus achieving Cameron's objective of minimizing casualties by a surprise attack before dawn. The myth-makers give him no credit for that.

GEOFF PARKER

Kamo

Dear Sir (Sent to the NZ Listener 22/2/17)

Regarding the article “Inglorious Dastards” by Dr Vincent O’Malley.

Dr O’Malley’s contribution to the latest edition of the New Zealand Listener is so full of pejorative allusions it would take a small book to address each one and point out aspects of historical context which he wilfully ignores. However, some online searching of, for example, the web site founded by his colleague Dr Jock Phillips - Te Ara - The Enclyclopedia of New Zealand, might be of interest to people who would like more balanced information.

It is not a matter of “owning up” to our troubled past. Actual history is what it is and any rational person should be able to acknowledge that.

The problem is the current tendency for supposedly professional historians to make claims devoid of sober historical context. I confess I have no idea what their motives might be for doing this.

Dr O’Malley’s article does very little to shed light on “what really took place at Rangiaowhia”. It does, however, provide a very good example of the sort of revisionist hyperbole which needs to be debunked before it is possible to have a mature conversation about New Zealand’s colonial past.

Sadly, in the current climate of political correctness, few have the guts to publicly challenge the assertions made by people like him.

CHRIS LEE

Tauranga

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Taranaki Daily News 22/2/17)

It is disappointing that so many victims of political correctness continue to advocate the compulsory learning of Maori language in our schools. If there were any real wisdom remaining in outer society it would be known that " for all things there is a season", and that no power on earth can stop the Maori culture and language from eventually passing away. We call it evolution.

Maori culture, in the pre colonial sense, has indeed already long since passed into history. Human cultures and societies are at every moment in a natural process of dynamic metamorphosis, even without the impact of dominant colonising civilisations.

If we had an education system worthy of the name, it would be general knowledge that scores, perhaps hundreds of cultures and languages in the course of history have become extinct, or have changed beyond recognition by blending with other cultures, the both becoming the richer for it.

Let us not forget that even the mighty Roman empire, the dominant and leading culture of the then known world, has, together with its language (latin), passed away. How many past civilisations, races, and languages have synthesised and evolved to become the modern language and culture we know as English? And this too shall pass, " in its season".

The demise of ancient cultures should, ideally, be neither be hastened nor prolonged, but be allowed to pass in dignity and gratitude and not be kept artificially alive as humiliating caricatures of their former reality.

If the anti-western, pro-tribalism activists possessed any trace of the old Maori consciousness they would know that it is the fruits of the past which we carry forward with us into the future, not the trappings. Such agitators have no wish to arrive at the truth since they suspect this may not be to their advantage, they only wish to win the argument.

All that was true and beautiful in past civilisations and cultures, including that of the Maori, we carry on with us as qualities of soul. Nothing of true worth is ever irretrievably lost, thus mankind progresses.

COLIN RAWLE, Dunedin

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Dominion Post 19/2/17

The Maori Language Act 2016, praised by Ngahiwi Apanui, (18/2/17) is a flagrant example of retrospective legislation which grossly distorts the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi. An act declaring that lead is gold would be no worse. Is Mr Apanui aware that in 1820, Hongi Hika defined “taonga” as “property procured by the spear”, in 1831 Ngapuhi chiefs stated that their “taonga” were “nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes”, two of which they owed to Europeans, and by 1840 it included material goods and no more?

Again, his claim that the act creates a partnership is nonsense. The Crown may employ Maori speakers (including Mr Apanui no doubt) to give effect to its acts but that is no “partnership”. If the lives of some Maoris are “enhanced” by using te reo, so be it, but plenty do not care. Legislation will not make it “an important part of New Zealand’s national identity”, whether he likes it or not.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to NZHerald 11/2/17)

"When Bill English discusses water rights with tribes he compromises the democratic rights of all the other people of New Zealand."

"Dame Patsy Reddy, the Governor-General, seems to think that "kawanatanga", ceded completely and for ever by the chiefs at Waitangi, is something less than sovereignty. Does she think that Hobson was a fool?"

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Press 7/2/17)

Lyall Lukey’s reference to “ Richard Tankersley’s article on Ngai Tahu’s long fight for justice” ignores the fact that the 1998 settlement was Ngai Tahu’s fifth “full and final settlement”. The fourth, in 1973 was accepted by 109 formal resolutions at about 80 tribal meetings, as noted by Whetu Tirikatne-Sullivan. It is a mockery that the fifth was ever entertained by the Waitangi Tribunal and accepted by compliant politicians. One false claim was accepted because it allegedly had “a convincing ring about it”. Evison had only part of the story..

Tankersley is evidently a connection of pale-faced tattooed Louise Tankersley whose 2004 story “Te Tiriti O Waitangi and Community Development” is a grossly distorted tale, typical of Lukey’s ”post-truth era”.

Lukey refers to “ the importance of the role of historians” in it. It is precisely our establishment historians who have distorted much of New Zealand’s history almost beyond recognition.

BRUCE MOON, Nelson

The Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 4/2/17)

The opinion article by Race relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy Feb 4 on learning our nations past and history

is nothing short of breathtaking regarding her comments on the skirmish at Rangiowahia near Kihi kihi

Dame Susan has a whole commission and staff behind her yet she demonstrates she knows very little of the history of this affair

The action at Rangiowahia was initiated with preservation of human life as a major criteria and she insults the efforts of the troopers who carried it out

If Dame Susan wants to encourage us to learn our history she should make a start with herself

The information is available and there is little excuse for her inaccuracies

GRAEME FAULKNER

Tauranga

Dear Editor (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 4/1/17

Susan Devoy in her column (4 Feb) tells of some teenagers from Otorohanga who on a school history trip to the site of the Battle of Rangiowhia "were horrified to hear that women and children who sought shelter in a local church were locked inside and the church burnt to the ground". Clearly they did no research to check the veracity of this claim because they then started a petition to have a holiday to commemorate the "Land Wars". It seems Devoy has also swallowed this story. What puts the lie to this claim is that both the original churches, the English and Catholic are still there today.

Casualties of the battle are recorded as

Maori: 12 killed including chiefs Hoani and Ihaia and two daughters of Kereopa Te Rau.

European: 3 killed and 2 mortally wounded.

Devoy challenges us “know your history”. She should be taking her own advice. Accepting these kind of historical fabrications as factual does nothing for race relations.

I expect better from New Zealand’s Race Relations Commissioner.

RICHARD PRINCE

Welcome Bay

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Southland Times 30/1/17)

Your correspondent Nobby Clark feels that Gareth Morgan and his Opportunity Party could be the answer to the plethora of ridiculous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.

One of the aims of the Opportunity Party is to have an upper house in Parliament of 50% Maori, and 50% of the rest of us.

Thus 15% of the population would have 50% of the power and with a few bleeding-heart-greenie liberals from the other side, common-sense would be down the drain.

Of those 15% of the Maori population, it would certainly not be your everyday good Kiwi Maori - the upper house would be peopled by the radical Treatyists intent on running the country under a constitution enshrining the Treaty of Waitangi at its core. It would be apartheid where we would be divided by race.

The definition of democracy is that we are all equal under the law regarding race religion and gender.

If the treaty became superior law, permament race-based laws would be with us forever.

The democracy we currently enjoy would be a thing of the past!

Mr. Clark - you may wish to reconsider which politicial party would be in your best interests.

ROBIN BISHOP

Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 30/1/17)

I read your recent article of an unpremeditated attack on a man playing with his grandchildren in a park in Remuera.

The offender was described as Caucasian, with olive skin, of medium build and in his late teens or early 20's.

I remember when it became politically correct, or perhaps even forbidden, for the media to describe an offender as Maori or Polynesian.

Thus, on reading this description of the "Caucasian" offender, I can now fairly safely assume that if the offender is not described as Caucasian, Indian, Asian, etc, we can take it for granted that the offender is a Maori or Polynesian.

That adequately removes the politically-correct nonsense of failing to describe the race of the offender.

ROBIN BISHOP

Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 28/1/17)

The Government has set aside $4 million dollars to celebrate the land wars over the next four years, starting this year. Bill English said at Turangawaewae Marae that “it is on this day we start the process, the recognition and the retelling of histories that we have not heard before”, he said. “There is an obligation to tell the full story.” I agree. Let’s have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help all of us! A date and name has yet to be set.

Cherry Grove is a beautiful, quiet spot in Taumarunui, on the confluence of the Wanganui and Ongarue Rivers. Some 600 Patupaiarehe people lived there in peace and harmony until 1832, when 1000 Maori attacked, killed and ate some of them, took most of the rest as slaves, leaving few to escape.

Let us hear about the atrocities that the warlike Maori committed against peaceful Maori, Moriori, Turehu, Patupaiarehe, and Waitaha.

Why did DOC cut down some 12 oak trees in the Bay of Islands, almost 2 metres thick, and reputed to be over 800 years old? These, and many other stories, would have told a story!

If we are going to have a rememberance day of the land wars, let us not have it in sepia and white duotone, but have it in full colour!

KEVAN G. MARKS

Kaiwaka

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 22/1/17)

I read with amusement your article about the offence taken by Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox over the Yates product Black Magic seed-raising mix.

She is angry at the company for the being perpetrators of institutionalised racism and would like to see them change their marketing.

As a Ngati Pakeha, perhaps Ms Fox will also understand my angst every time I see an advertisement from a toothpaste company promoting "whiter-than-white teeth!"

There are also laundry powder advertisements which cause me considerable distress with their blatant desire to be the whitest of all!

I am sure that the Race Relations Commissioner could consider banning the words, black, white, and for good measure beige - for those caught in between in the colour spectrum.

I certainly hope that the management of Yates continue with their Black Magic logo and ignore those who seek to take offence so easily.

ROBIN BISHOP

Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Bay of Plenty Times 21/1/17)

Your correspondent Peter Turmer makes an excellent point in that the new name for the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic means nothing to 95% of the population.

A few weeks ago, while sitting in traffic on Cameron Road I spotted another name change. It is our Public Health Service now unbelievably re-named Toi Te Ora Public Health Service. On reaching home I checked in the telephone directory to ascertain that if I needed to contact our Public Health Service - could I do so? The answer is No. There is nothing listed under Public Health Service!

It is an organisation which has never had Maori roots, just like the polytechnic - pre-European Maori never had any educational or public health system, so why attach a Maori name to these organisations? Who is responsible for the furtive re-naming of these services - and what of the associated costs which will have been under-handedly paid for by our taxes?

ROBIN BISHOP

Tauranga

Dear Editor (Sent to the NZHerald 18/1/17)

Article by Tariana Turia Jan 17th, unbelievable, who is the racist here? This

is all about Maori just wanting More, not for the good of ALL kiwis.

The majority of Middle NZ people are struggling. Their wages are miserable the

cost of living along with compliance cost that just keep escalating and most

families even with both parents working can hardly make it all work. Heaven

help them all if interest rates rise! Many are homeless even though they go

to work, because there just is a huge shortage of rental houses. Most will

never be able to save for their retirement.

Turia needs to take a reality check, all kiwis are suffering the same issues

not just Maori so all this' I want, I Want' from Maori is Creating a racist

atmosphere, because we are tired of bleating Maori wanting more, it all gets

back to greed! Radical Maori wanting sovereignty, water ownership and repeat

waitangi claims, Running this country broke. Surely after 170 years of

interbreeding, intermarriage of the people part maori could grow up and work

toward the good of all NZ.

C.HUMPHREYS

Katikati

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post 14/1/17)

Ryan Gray's letter (Post,13/1/17) shines a spot-light on an age-old cause of human conflict.

His irrational sympathies and antipathies have completely destroyed his sense for truth. Hence he vents his spleen by fanning the flames of divisive racial propaganda.

Don Brash's Orewa speech was only "infamous" to folk like him. In fact it was a rare ray of light amidst a wilfully engineered miasma of divide-and-rule misinformation.

There were never any" illegal land confiscations" or "attempts to abolish Maori culture". Quite the opposite, and anyone who does a little honest research can confirm this for themselves.

The last thing that spell-bound folk like Mr Gray want is the truth, and thus they will powerfully resist googling this link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEYVCNgYA6s

wherein the facts about racism are explained by a decent, honest, and intelligent black man.

C R

Dunedin

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Wanganui Chronicle 12/1/17)

H Norton (Letters 12/1/17), argues his information source is better than mine like a peevish school kid.

When Norton can provide valid figures that clearly confirm more maoris perished pre 1840 from European-introduced diseases than were slaughtered in the Musket Wars then I and no doubt other readers may take his claims seriously.

I wonder how many of his so called renowned historians are also cringing at his misinformation?

GEOFFREY T PARKER

Whangarei

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 9/1/17)

A new broom sweeps clean, as an old saying goes. With a new Prime Minister, and new faces in Cabinet, we might just see some important changes in Government thinking, but I won’t hold my breath.

A wine amendment bill allows Maori rights to control and name wine! This sets a dangerous precedence! What will be next? You can guarantee that it will not stop with wine! We could even name a new town after it – Waipiro! We could not call it Te Kauwhata, of course, because that comes from three English words: The Cow (aaah) Broke Wind!

Nor could we call it Taihape Wine, because that comes from two English words. When the North Island Main Trunk railway line was being built, people from various places in the world gathered to put it through. Chinese built a part, Irish another part, and the Scots built the Taihape section.

Obviously, where there are Scotsmen, there will be scotch whisky. During their tenure, they gave some to the local Maoris, and they went away to “Die Happy”!

The battle to control fresh water will, no doubt, continue next year as well.

This is all to do with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But wait! What are these principles? The only principles, if that is what you call them, are that the Maoris give up fighting, cannibalism, and slavery, and for that they would become British citizens, and we could all live happily ever after. Wouldn’t that be nice?

KEVAN G. MARKS

Kaipara.

Dear Sir, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 9/1/17)

Well, it did not take long in the new year for somebody to take umbrage at a so-called racist remark, did it?

You can do a thousand things right, and not hear too much about it, but one wrong, and the media ghouls are into you like pigs into swill.

Who could take offence at what Sir Peter Leitch said after what he has done for sport, among others seeking help?

Shakespeare would have had a field day: “Much Ado About Nothing”!

If we were one people, as Captain William Hobson said at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi 177 years ago, would this have happened?

Somebody asks how do we pull the community together? Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1.) Stop being so damned thin skinned!

2). Toss out the Labour and National Governments. They are equally responsible for this whole debacle. Why? Because it helps keep one in Parliament, and the other out!

3). Toss out the racist Maori seats in Parliament, as John Key promised.

4). Abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. It is an “albatross round our necks”.

5). Stop kowtowing to the Maori elite. It is embarrasing to many Maori.

Dame Susan Devoy says that it is not the end of the story. I agree. Dame Susan could start the ball rolling by acknowledging that the Patupirarehe, Waitaha, and Turehu people were here a thousand years before Maori. Let truth defeat deceit!

Kawena Hori Maka

(KEVAN GEORGE MARKS)

Kaipara.

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Waikato Times 9/1/17)

I agree with Peter Holbrook (Times, 9/1/17) that local usage may not be the “right” way to pronounce placenames. In English we pronounce “Paris” with five differences from a Parisian. What determines pronunciation is the native language of the speaker and for nearly all of us in New Zealand we are fortunate that that is English. English, unlike Maori, is accented, with many syllables ending in consonants, many diphthongs and many more sounds. It is inevitable that this will always influence pronunciation.

Moreover, historically there is considerable difference in Maori usage throughout the country and it would be wrong to suggest that there is the only one right one. We have only to look in the Treaty of Waitangi, whose translators were excellent speakers of the Ngapuhi dialect, to find “land” translated as “wenua” and “February” transliterated as “Pepueri” - not a “wh” or “f” in sight! This indicates, if it does not prove, that changing the name of Wanganui against the wishes of the great majority, now pronounced with an “F” by most TV and radio announcers, is pure puffery. We need to replace pretence by some realism.

BRUCE MOON

Nelson

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Rotorua Daily Post By Andy Oakley and as yet unpublished)

Recently the Rotorua Daily Post published Lizzie Marvelly’s story of a good Kiwi farmer Joseph Smith and the day his life went downhill after signing an agreement.

THE FOLLOWING IS A MORE ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE SAME EVENTS.

Joseph’s family were related to Polynesians that colonized the first farmers of New Zealand in the 13 & 1400s. They either enslaved or slaughtered many of the first farmers and continued to do so for many generations.

Once the first farmers had either been ethnically cleansed or driven off to the Chatham’s, Joseph’s family and relations turned on each other. Large gangs of farmers roamed New Zealand in the 1800s carrying out all manner of atrocities as they went, eating many of their foes on the battle field or taking them back to their farms as slaves and eating them, weeks, months or years later.

Josephs Kiwi name for his family was Te Rauparaha and the Rauparaha’s were hated by the local farmers in Kawhia because they were murderous thugs. So the Rauparaha’s were driven out and they left a trail of death and dismembered bodies all the way to Kapiti looking for a new farm.

The Rauparaha's were greedy and wanted their farm to be all of Kapiti, Porirua, Wellington and most of the South Island too, so they along with some other friendly farmer family’s killed all of the local farmers in Wellington and Porirua, who were the Ngati Ira family and took all of their farms.

Just after they did that, the Mutunga and Tama families that that helped the Raupara's to kill the Ngati Ira families went to the Chatham’s where some of the first farmers still lived and they killed nearly every one of them too. The ones that were left were subjected to terrible treatment.

Many other families just like the Rauparaha’s, the Maniapoto’s and the Kooti’s were doing exactly the same all over New Zealand. They were killing so many of the smaller farming families that the population was shrinking drastically. The smaller farmer families at their wits ends pleaded with the city folk to help them. They had seen the law and order and fantastic technology the city folk had and wanted it too.

The city folk said the only way we can help you and apply law and order is to establish sovereignty by having you sign it over to us. In return we will protect you and your property and all of us will become one nation, one people, “he iwi tahi tatou!” they all said.

The farmers gladly agreed and signed a treaty with them and so now the city folk had to protect everyone in New Zealand. Apart from a few farmers who didn’t want to sign the agreement and broke the law, everyone else was happy. But the government had to protect all the people who were being threatened and killed by the farmers who didn’t agree and so punished those who broke the law by taking the farms that they had taken from the earlier farmers.

The law abiding farmers soon thrived and their population increased again. Most liked the city folk so much they became city folk too, everyone was happy.

Some of the farmers were so brainy and well off in the 1970’s they went to university where they met some Marxists and together they made up a story that no farmers ever killed anyone and that all the land that they had taken from the early farmers had been stolen from them and that they had owned if forever because they were indigenous. They yelled, “There weren’t any first farmers!” even though some are still here.

Their silly story also includes that the treaty they signed was ‘only’ for the farmers and that it was a partnership, even though the farmers are not even mentioned in the agreement. As silly as that all sounds a little girl called Lizzie believed it and wrote fairy stories about that silly legend and many people laughed at how silly she was.

ANDY OAKLEY

Kapiti Coast

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Sunday Star Times 8/1/17)

I read your editorial by Bevan Hurley this week with much surprise. He

comments on the Mad Butcher incident but not one word of the original

comment by Lara Wharepapa-Bridger which spawned the incident and which

has now grown legs.

When Mr. Leitch was joking with her about not drinking too much because

there were lots of police on the island - she said that "she was tangata

whenua and could do what she liked" and Mr. Leitch responded with a joke

about it being a white man's island also - with laws that need to be obeyed.

Your editor has added fuel to the fire by writing a very biased account

of an incident that should never have even reached the news.

ROBIN BISHOP

Tauranga

Dear Editor, (Sent to the NZ Herald Short & Sweet section 6/1/17)

As Ms.Lara Bridger stated to the Mad Butcher she was born on the Island and she was therefore Tangata Whenua, she has done all birthright Kiwis a huge favour because clearly based on her argument maori can no longer use this as a tool to gain or claim any special rights or race based privileges over their fellow Kiwis who are New Zealand born. QED"

GEOFF PARKER

Whangarei

Dear Editor (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 5/1/17)

Usual style needed for Maori word usage

What does the word “taonga” actually mean, and does the news media wish to communicate?

In her letter on Tuesday which amounted to a personal attack, Jacqueline Braid of Dunedin asserted that “taonga” means “treasure”.

But “taonga” also means “property” and “apparatus” and in the first Maori-English dictionary, it meant “property taken at the point of a spear”.

Moreover, treaty claimants have adopted a wider definition the word as “an object or natural resource which is highly prized”. This enables claims for anything not alluded to in the Treaty of Waitangi, such as radio spectrum.

Judith Smith’s letter pointed to a lax news media style which allows English and Maori words to be mixed in text under the assumption that everyone knows what the Maori words mean.

But the most recent census shows just three percent of the population is able to speak Maori.

This would suggest that we should continue to follow the usual style for introducing a non-English word into an English text.

This requires placing the meaning of that word in brackets after the first use of that word.

Following this usual style would enable news reports to communicate, not obfuscate.

MIKE BUTLER

Hastings

Dear Editor, (Sent to the Northern Advocate 5/1/17)

Maire Kaire 28/11/16 asked “what have Maori iwi gained from this marriage with National by backing this RMA reform?”

The answer below sourced from a NZCPR newsletter should set alarm bells ringing in all New Zealanders.

“The new ‘Iwi Participation Agreements’ will require democratically elected councils to seek the approval of unelected tribal representatives in all major decision-making. Even though many councils have more than a dozen tribes claiming an interest in their areas – each will be entitled to set up their own Agreements and be individually consulted.

These Agreements will also provide an accelerated pathway for tribal groups to become resource consenting authorities for fresh water and other natural resources. By using the RMA’s Section 33 ‘Transfer of Powers’, a tribe can become a full consenting authority, or by using Section 36B, they can become a joint consenting authority with their council.

The mechanisms that Nick Smith has included in the RMA will enable unelected race-based vested interests to take over resource consenting from democratically elected councils. That means hapless property owners will not only be forced to consult with councils, but with multiple tribes as well.”

In short, Minister Nick Smith’s deal with the separatist Maori Party includes race-based co-governance powers for Maori elite.

GEOFF PARKER

Kamo

Dear Editor (Sent to the Hawkes Bay Today 4/1/17

Jacqueline Braid of Dunedin, in reprimanding Judith Smith for her view of te reo, (HBT,3/1/17)seems unaware of the old adage that “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. She can “treat te reo with mana” if she wants to but her demand that others do so is precisely the arrogance which she claims to deplore.

And yes, our primary school children are indeed indoctrinated with the statement that “taonga” means “treasure” but nobody tells them that in 1840 that was far from the truth when it meant no more than ordinary property which, by the Treaty of Waitangi, we all were and are entitled to possess. Its meaning changed rapidly afterwards to include the rich array of material goods which Europeans brought to New Zealand and continues to expand today to include everything anybody might desire.

Indeed recently a senior Auckland professor claimed that any Maori was entitled to kill and eat our beautiful native pigeons because they were a “taonga” guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi. This is an abuse of the meaning of the Treaty and defiance of the law which protects them but evidently Braid’s “appropriate usage” of te reo.

BRUCE MOON

Nelson