$38,000,000 in treaty settlements for...
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#165 Jul 1, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again, Guts. If you want to cite equal treatment on the one hand, then you cannot also cite the 2004 F&S as ‘equal’ treatment given the Act’s specific targeting of customary Maori title while not also including private title. That’s the ironic beauty of this little fact of history. It just shows you up as the hypocrite that you are.
True equal treatment in this case would be one of two things: Either the Crown packages existing sections of relevant private title together with customary Maori title and declares all of it for the benefit of ‘all New Zealanders’, or the Crown honors the Treaty and the fact that it never ownership (as was established by the Court of Appeal) and grants title to Maori, thereby allowing both Pakeha and Maori to keep existing title.
Allowing private title to exist on the one hand, but extinguishing only Maori title is not equal – it’s prejudicial, and prejudicial by definition!
The problem is that Pakeha get deathly afraid at the prospect of Maori owning anything, and as far as I’m concerned this is a significant albeit unmentioned acknowledgement of the fact that Pakeha socio-economic power has historically been tied to Maori land.
Maori don’t need Pakeha to pay for anything. That’s just you expressing your prejudice and bias once again. A far more equitable ideal would envision Maori using Maori resources to generate employment, income for workers and tax revenues in exactly the same way we did between 1790 and 1860. Historical precedent is on my side, so if you choose not to bother yourself with actual history, then you’re welcome to continue to dwell in your self imposed ignorance.
The fact is Guts, the process of colonization and land acquisition by the Crown has denied Maori an equal opportunity to participate in the economy after 1860. Pakeha colonization of NZ was too successful. It took too much.
Each successive generation of Pakeha since the Land Wars has been able to pass on accumulated wealth, and this accumulation of wealth combined with unequal access to education and social services has meant that over time, the socio-economic gap between Pakeha and Maori has increased to create unequal distribution of wealth, education, housing, employment opportunities, and health and so on as we see it today.
Opportunities do exist for Maori today, and will continue to improve over time. I am living proof of that, but these opportunities have only been readily available to Maori within the last 50-60 years or so.
Wrong again, Maori Guy.

There is a widening socio-economic gap in this country, but it isn't just restricted to Maori.

How do you explain the newcomers to these shores that have not had the benefit of "the accumulation of wealth" that you cite? I'd argue that I'm one of these folk...there were no intergenerational hand downs of wealth for me, and yet I've come through okay.

Also - improvements in opportunities for Maori? I'd suggest that even with another 60 or 70 years, you'll still be seeking more. Even if the government went out and gave every man woman and child in this country a million dollars, Maori would still have their hand out for more. This appeasement process is never ending.

Meantime, you're still happy being the one trick pony mate? F&S. Customary title...just some fancy name dreamed up by a PC do-gooder, to help make Maori feel more entitled and to ease the white guilt trip which has been foisted on to us, as far as I'm concerned. And like I've said numerous times, how many of the "average Maori" in South Auckland would benefit from this 'customary title'...sweet fa. Regardless, it's time to change your tune, and give us some REAL WORLD tangible examples of things that non-Maori get which Maori aren't entitled. I can only assume you can't, since I've been asking for SUCH a long time now.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#166 Jul 1, 2012
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a widening socio-economic gap in this country, but it isn't just restricted to Maori.
True – but I never said that this wasn’t the case. Proportionally speaking, socio-economic disparity is a bigger and much more persistent problem for Maori as a group than it has been for Pakeha as a group.
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you explain the newcomers to these shores that have not had the benefit of "the accumulation of wealth" that you cite? I'd argue that I'm one of these folk...there were no intergenerational hand downs of wealth for me, and yet I've come through okay.
I’m not attempting to explain every conceivable situation and variable right down to every individual. There are always going to be exceptions to any rule. Wealth and privilege are relative terms. The fact that someone can immigrate to another country is a privilege in itself when compared to individuals or families for whom emigration is not financially feasible.
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Also - improvements in opportunities for Maori? I'd suggest that even with another 60 or 70 years, you'll still be seeking more.
Suggest away, my friend. It’s a free country.
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Meantime, you're still happy being the one trick pony mate? F&S. Customary title...just some fancy name dreamed up by a PC do-gooder, to help make Maori feel more entitled and to ease the white guilt trip which has been foisted on to us, as far as I'm concerned.
I figure there’s little point dragging out other ponies at this point, Guts, as you haven’t yet been able to explain the prejudicial actions of the Crown in this case, let alone any other I might want to trot out.

For your information, Guts, customary title is part of the common law doctrine which goes right back to medieval times – arguably before the phrase ‘Political Correctness’ had been coined.

(See what happens when you’re too lazy to check your facts first?)
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
it's time to change your tune, and give us some REAL WORLD tangible examples of things that non-Maori get which Maori aren't entitled. I can only assume you can't, since I've been asking for SUCH a long time now
The F&S is a real world example. It happened in the real world. It is also tangible because land is tangible.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#167 Jul 4, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? So Pakeha as a group begin life with more socio-economic chances than Maori and are able to give their kids a better head start which in turns increases their life opportunities is what. Also, Pakeha are better able to insulate their kids from downward mobility for by providing inter-vivo gifts at critical life junctures: like contributions toward education or a first home and so on and has little to nothing to do with individual merit. Can you say that a child whose parent helped to put a down payment on a first home EARNED that financial contribution? I don’t think so.
Individual merit doesn’t explain the entire story. The fact is PC, simply being the majority doesn’t explain the unequal distribution of wealth and income within the Pakeha community, so how on earth can it begin to explain the inequality of wealth and income between Pakeha and Maori?
In economic theory,‘normal’ wealth distribution based on individual merit should resemble a bell curve, with small numbers of ‘incompetent’ and ‘talented’ people at either extreme with the remainder of ‘average’ people somewhere in the middle, but the skewed nature of ACTUAL distribution of wealth appears in excess of any reasonable distribution of individual merit. Most of the money is concentrated at the top of the economy. This is true for NZ and all capitalist societies, particularly in the US where the top 5% of households receive 22% of available income, while the richest 1% of households account for 33% of all available net worth, while the bottom 50% of households account for only 3% of net worth.
What’s wrong with your theory, PC?
The silence is deafening!

“Deciphering Rangi Speak”

Since: May 12

Auckland, New Zealand

#168 Jul 4, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The silence is deafening!
I recall you being asked over 100 questions in the last few months, most of which were unanswered, were dodged or replied to with completely unrelated crap nit picked so bad that you tried to disguise the answer.
NESIAN

New Zealand

#169 Jul 5, 2012
Defend the Land wrote:
<quoted text>
I recall you being asked over 100 questions in the last few months, most of which were unanswered, were dodged or replied to with completely unrelated crap nit picked so bad that you tried to disguise the answer.
ever heard of social life? hahaha,your JUst pathetic.

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#171 Jul 14, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? So Pakeha as a group begin life with more socio-economic chances than Maori and are able to give their kids a better head start which in turns increases their life opportunities is what. Also, Pakeha are better able to insulate their kids from downward mobility for by providing inter-vivo gifts at critical life junctures: like contributions toward education or a first home and so on and has little to nothing to do with individual merit. Can you say that a child whose parent helped to put a down payment on a first home EARNED that financial contribution? I don’t think so.
Individual merit doesn’t explain the entire story. The fact is PC, simply being the majority doesn’t explain the unequal distribution of wealth and income within the Pakeha community, so how on earth can it begin to explain the inequality of wealth and income between Pakeha and Maori?
In economic theory,‘normal’ wealth distribution based on individual merit should resemble a bell curve, with small numbers of ‘incompetent’ and ‘talented’ people at either extreme with the remainder of ‘average’ people somewhere in the middle, but the skewed nature of ACTUAL distribution of wealth appears in excess of any reasonable distribution of individual merit. Most of the money is concentrated at the top of the economy. This is true for NZ and all capitalist societies, particularly in the US where the top 5% of households receive 22% of available income, while the richest 1% of households account for 33% of all available net worth, while the bottom 50% of households account for only 3% of net worth.
What’s wrong with your theory, PC?
So, what is wrong with your theory, PC?

“Tino Rangatiratanga”

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#172 Sep 28, 2012
That Maori Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? So Pakeha as a group begin life with more socio-economic chances than Maori and are able to give their kids a better head start which in turns increases their life opportunities is what. Also, Pakeha are better able to insulate their kids from downward mobility for by providing inter-vivo gifts at critical life junctures: like contributions toward education or a first home and so on and has little to nothing to do with individual merit. Can you say that a child whose parent helped to put a down payment on a first home EARNED that financial contribution? I don’t think so.
Individual merit doesn’t explain the entire story. The fact is PC, simply being the majority doesn’t explain the unequal distribution of wealth and income within the Pakeha community, so how on earth can it begin to explain the inequality of wealth and income between Pakeha and Maori?
In economic theory,‘normal’ wealth distribution based on individual merit should resemble a bell curve, with small numbers of ‘incompetent’ and ‘talented’ people at either extreme with the remainder of ‘average’ people somewhere in the middle, but the skewed nature of ACTUAL distribution of wealth appears in excess of any reasonable distribution of individual merit. Most of the money is concentrated at the top of the economy. This is true for NZ and all capitalist societies, particularly in the US where the top 5% of households receive 22% of available income, while the richest 1% of households account for 33% of all available net worth, while the bottom 50% of households account for only 3% of net worth.
What’s wrong with your theory, PC?
Any comments, PC?
TEEstrong

United States

#173 Sep 28, 2012
Fed Up wrote:
tax payers are folking out $38,000,000 in compensation to a Maori tribe for an event that happened over 150 years ago! can someone please explain the logic behind this?
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/... -$38m-treaty-settlement
thats right love it

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Zealand Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Restaurant review: Waiomu Beach Cafe on the Tha... Jan 13 Lesleyandmike 1
News Teens in police pursuit in Far North Jan 3 Mom 1
News Lotto NZ returns $204 million to the community Dec 25 Franklin Agapay 8
News New Zealand defends UN vote on Israeli settlements Dec 24 Dick USA 1
News Regulator takes issue with penalty charge for s... (Apr '16) Dec 21 Solarman 4
News Man charged over shooting of Hell's Angels gang... (Mar '07) Dec '16 John 4,205
News New Zealand PM Changes Mind on Same-Sex Marriag... Dec '16 Magic Utah Uwear 1
More from around the web