Gareth Morgan
THE ONE-EYED CHERRYPICKER
Recently Gareth Morgan posed the following rather mixed up racial question to the people of New Zealand.
Quote: “The All Blacks are in the UK, they’ll be doing the haka. All New Zealanders will cheer and beam with pride as they do it.
That is the Maori within us, that is what being a New Zealander is.
Why then do some of us struggle so much with this reality when we’re at home? What makes us want to cherry pick those aspects of Maori identity and culture for our own use when it suits, but reject the concept of the bicultural society when we fear it might cost us? Are we free loaders or just too blind to see that what sets New Zealanders apart from other cultures is, at least in part, is the “Maoriness” in us all”. Unquote.
I (Andy Oakley) cannot comment on Gareth’s page as he has banned me along many others who do not agree with him, so here is my response to his latest go at being a separatist.
Gareth seems to be suggesting that there are two cultures in New Zealand, that we are bicultural, and that when members of one culture like aspects of the other culture or even behave in a similar, or the same way, as the other culture overseas, they should NOT be allowed to come back to New Zealand and state, the haka in this instance, is part of their culture as this is just cherry picking.
He then seems to say that cherry picking is what sets us apart as New Zealanders. Actually he refers to people who do this (New Zealanders) as free loaders. In other words he wishes to keep the two cultures separate and any borrowing from the other culture should be scorned.
I am guessing the free loaders he is referring to are the people who do not believe there are two cultures in New Zealand and want New Zealand society to be based on equality i.e. every New Zealander has equal rights NOT non-Maori people and Maori people should be equal and separate.
These people (free loaders) generally do not go around thinking that they are culturally cherry picking when they use Maori words to describe things or when they associate, or even perform a dance, with New Zealand. These people do not give it a second thought, as this is just New Zealand culture. Actually this is my culture, I do it all the time and I am not ashamed of it.
Using Gareth’s twisted analogy of two cultures, how is it that a non-Maori New Zealander overseas should not feel the haka represents all New Zealanders, because it is cherry picking, but people who identify as Maori can wallow about in all the riches and comforts other cultures have contributed to make them who they are today. Is that not culturally cherry picking too?
Apparently, according to Gareth, it is the Treaty of Waitangi that not only allows all of this separatist behavior, it makes it compulsory, it is the law!
According to him and the sovereignty movement this is because the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles are referred to in many acts in our legislation.
I quote him again:
“The treaty is increasingly part of law and it protects Maori society so it's not accurate to describe those laws as "archaic" - they are very real”. Unquote
However:
1) The actual Te Tiriti o Waitangi makes no such mention of racial, cultural or ethnic separation at all. It says exactly the opposite, it groups us all under one name, THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND. It does not protect Maori (only) society and I have challenged Gareth many times to find me the words in Te Tiriti o Waitangi that state Maori get anything separately over any other New Zealanders. His response was to ban me.
2) In 1840 the word “maori” simply meant “ordinary” and did so for most of the next decade. Which means the words of the treaty are directed at “ALL” New Zealanders. The people of New Zealand in 1840 we called “New Zealanders”, they were made up of 600 or so separate groups, tribes, clans or want ever you want to call them, INCLUDING 2000 or so people from Britain, America, France and other Polynesian Islands, approximately 3% of New Zealand’s population. The words in the Treaty “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” are directed at all 600 groups.
3) These separate groups did not all behave the same way in 1840. They had similar but different languages and they did not even look the same. There was as much cultural diversity in New Zealand then as there is today.
It is not illegal for Gareth Morgan to be a separatist.
It is not illegal for Gareth to set himself up as an apologist for “so called” wrongs he feels his separate group did to some other separate group.
It is not illegal for him to ban people who do not agree with his separatism from his Facebook page.
However, it should be illegal for a man with his money to go around New Zealand inciting racial disharmony by telling lies about the words written in the Treaty of Waitangi.
As I am banned, I encourage you to go to his Facebook site and tell him your thoughts on his racial separatism. > https://www.facebook.com/garethmorgannz
By Andy Oakley
Cannons Creek to Waitangi: https://www.facebook.com/cannonscreektowaitangi?fref=ts
Gareth Morgan is a Wigger.
A Wigger is someone who rats out their own race and culture for the warm glow that comes from lining up with supposedly “oppressed” peoples.
Like all Western countries, New Zealand has a raft of these self-despising, West-hating socialist traitors-- both in our universities and amongst the tertiary-educated -- who have been helped by their Communist lecturers to see that whites are to blame for all the evils of the world.
These are people who told us three decades ago that apartheid was a social and moral evil in South Africa. Now, they’re telling us that it’s a social and moral good in New Zealand. Whether apartheid is to be decried or endorsed is based entirely on the skin colour of its beneficiaries. Whites always deserve a good kicking.
Leftists despise their own culture. They’ve been schooled to hate Western civilisation and regard Western countries as racist, sexist, colonialist oppressors. They desperately want to see other cultures as somehow morally superior to our own.
They’re not. The Judeo-Christian culture that originated in Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, then took root in Europe before being exported worldwide, is vastly superior to other cultures. Many non-whites have also benefited massively in adopting Western cultural norms and values. This fact is undeniable to anyone except a moron.
These are people who have learned that the highest status in our society goes to anyone who can claim to be a member of a Marxist-designated race-, gender-, class-, or sexual preference-based "victim "group, For those who can't claim such membership, the next best thing is to be a totally supine, grovelling and apologetic member of a "victimiser" group -- a rescuer.
That's why liberal Wiggers like Gareth seek moral preening opportunities for "saving" the [part-] Maori.
Gareth Morgan’s ‘Upper House’ betrays all notions of democracy
So long as New Zealand remains a democracy, Morgan’s suggestion remains un-implementable. To suggest an undemocratic and racially-based subversion of the very pillars our nation and society rest upon is both ridiculous and contravenes the Treaty he is supposedly standing up for.
Sir Apirana Ngata was an outstanding politician, and a man who worked tirelessly for all New Zealanders. He was (and remains after death) followed, respected and adulated by people of all beliefs, ethnicities and values.
Similarly, the Maori Party have been often positive about the work those within this National government have done.
In both cases, the thread is the same – you shouldn’t be elected, appointed or judged on racial bias, but on the quality of work you do for all New Zealanders. Gareth Morgan’s blatantly racist and undemocratic views of our Parliament are not the way forward for New Zealand. The reinstatement of an upper house would be a backwards step for starters; to reinstate it in the way Morgan suggests would be to move New Zealand in the opposite direction to all other Western nations....
Read Devon Mace's full article HERE
Why I disagree with Gareth Morgan
But as explained in his recent Ngapuhi speech, Dr Morgan’s basic position seems to be that –
“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:
1) Treaty of Waitangi
2) Te Tiriti O Waitangi
3) Principles of the Treaty
4) Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”
And I think that that is nonsense. The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed. And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.
In one of his “Herald” articles Dr Morgan talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”. I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding. The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous. Moreover, to speak of New Zealand in 2015 being “two peoples” is equally silly: the overwhelming majority of people who identify as Maori also have some non-Maori ancestors, frequently a non-Maori parent, while “non-Maori” are no longer exclusively European but embrace a very wide range of ethnicities.
So I disagree with Dr Morgan’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions.
I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world. Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry. And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish. (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school. Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.) Of course if resources were infinite – so that we could teach te reo without crowding out anything else in the school curriculum – then why not learn a whole bunch of languages? But as an economist Dr Morgan should know better than most that resources are not infinite: teaching te reo would have an opportunity cost – something else would have to drop out of the curriculum.
The idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori, which Dr Morgan also advocates, strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.....
Read Dr Don Brash's full article HERE
Gareth Morgan wrong on treaty
Morgan’s assertion that making it up as they (Crown and claimants) go along was necessary because "the original documents aren’t very useful” shows that he has not looked closely at the texts of either Te Tiriti or the official English and has ruled out the Busby February 4 draft, also known as the Littlewood treaty.
Morgan has either forgotten or has not thought about the fact that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, which means the meaning and intent is clear in the source document, the original English.
That source document is quite likely the Busby February 4 draft that has only four words that differ from Te Tiriti, one of which is the date. But any mention of that document brings a torrent of spat tacks from grievers on the gravy train.
Because Morgan is woefully ignorant of the contents of the treaty he can make an idiotic statement like “how do we help Maoridom realise the all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga (used in Article 2, te reo version) in modern day Aotearoa New Zealand?”
If he had looked at the English source draft to see what the word “rangatiratanga” translated in Article 2, he would have seen that it translated the English word “possession”, as in “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
Morgan is also wrong to buy into land-loss rhetoric when he writes “justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property”.
No mention by Morgan of the fact that land-owner Maori sold New Zealand to the wicked white colonizer in hundreds of transactions painstakingly recorded in Turton’s deeds posted for all to see on the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre of the Victoria University of Wellington’s website.
New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. A total 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars (much of which was returned at the time). There are approximately 1.47 million hectares of Maori land (including customary land). Therefore, Maori land owners sold 24.13-million hectares.....
Read Mike Butler's full article HERE