Take it at face value, HD. It’s light hearted. Your attempt to use it to get under my skin was pretty feeble then (as your repetitious use of “fat lazy Maori’s” was in several posts in another thread recently), and now this one has sort of come home to roost. I thought it was funny in an ironic way, but that’s just me.<quoted text>
that comment from me about you taking your meds must really have got to you aye? How long ago was it TMG? And your still trying to use it as a comeback....funny.
Well Im keeping it honest TMG. I couldnt care less about some stupid maori appeasing blocks of wood mounted at the road side. I could care less about the Cenotaph. AS long as we go down the us and them road, this is what a lot of people will react like. Respect is a two way street. Maori show little respect for other peoples culture, so get little sympathy when this happens.
The only thing that is honest about your post is that it is rambling and incoherent. It just doesn’t make any sense. For instance begin with the following dichotomy: The pou as “supid boonga carvings” and “stupid maori appeasing blocks of wood” on the one hand with the Cenotaph on the other; which distorts the cultural validity of the pou and falsely presents both objects as polar opposites (stupid vs. significant, valid vs. invalid, theirs vs. ours etc) only to then appeal to some wishy-washy comment about the “us and them road” after having just gone out of your way to discriminate against the pou (i.e. them). That’s called a logical contradiction, just so you know.
What else? Oh, yeah – you use this false dichotomy to justify senseless vandalization and then proceed to say that respect is a “two way street”(another contradiction, since the act of willfully and deliberately vandalizing something is itself disrespectful).
So what is the conclusion? That vandalizing two pou (which is clearly an attack on Maori identity) is somehow proof that Maori – all Maori, no less – show “little respect for other people’s culture”. That’s called irony, just so you know. Another conclusion we can draw is that acts of vandalization justifies more self perpetuating vandalization. That’s called stupid, just so you know.
The pou are a visual reminder upon the landscape of a prior cultural occupation, while the justification your offer for the act of vandalization is really an emotional response signaling a collective inability for Pakeha to deal with Maori indigeneity.
The reality is that people are different. We don’t all have to be the same. The fact is, it’s not the perceived cultural differences you object to, but having to face the fact that the presence of Pakeha in NZ is only made legitimate by the Treaty, but then the Treaty guarantees the property rights of Maori, and these property rights are an obstacle in the project of domination.