Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Center for Political Research flays the racist Maori Party.
Exposing the Real Agenda
It is not easy to rile New Zealanders, but Hone Harawira’s abusive email clearly did. By claiming that he was entitled to rip off taxpayers with his jaunt to Paris because Whities had been ripping off Maori for centuries, Hone Harawira exposed the racist thinking that underpins the Maori Party. As Labour’s former Tai Tokerau MP Dover Samuels said, Mr Harawira is “advocating what he really believes in. A lot of people sitting with him in Parliament believe the same thing”.
In fact, it could be said that Mr Harawira has done the country a favour with his outburst by reminding the public about the Maori Party’s agenda. Although the Maori Party sounds like it represents Maori it doesn’t. At the 2008 general election, the Maori Party gained only 56,000 votes, or 2.4 percent of the party vote. The vast majority of Maori voters chose to support mainstream parties rather than this radical party with its Maori sovereignty agenda.
The Maori Party wants Maori to win back control of New Zealand. In a world where the abolition of privilege is a central tenet of modern democratic reform, the Maori Party wants to create a world where the colour of one’s skin determines social and economic advantage. On its own, the creation of racial privilege for anyone calling themselves Maori is a preposterous notion. But with the acquiescence of John Key’s National Party, it is exceedingly dangerous.
The leadership of the Maori Party say they are mortified at the public backlash over their colleague’s behaviour. But what they are not saying is that they are desperate that this controversy does not spoil their plan to get their hands on the jewel in New Zealand’s crown – our foreshore and seabed – not to mention the $1 billion of “whanau ora” funding which National is planning to devolve direct to Maori communities for social services delivery.
Over the years, the Maori Party leadership has been at great pains to portray itself as mainstream and reasonable. Co-leaders Tariana Turia and Peter Sharples have it down to a fine art. Yet they rely on the public having a short memory, because it wasn’t too long ago that Ms Turia was being censored by Prime Minister Helen Clark for her radical views.
In a speech to the New Zealand Psychological Society Conference in August 2000, Ms Turia, as Labour’s Associate Minister of Maori Affairs, spoke extensively about the effects of colonisation on Maori. She called New Zealand’s first British settlers ‘invaders’ and ‘predators’ explaining that they committed atrocities similar to ‘home invasions’ on their Maori ‘victims’: “I can see the connections between ‘home invasions’ which concern many of us, to the invasion of the ‘home lands’ of indigenous people by a people from another land. What I have difficulty in reconciling is how ‘home invasions’ emits such outpourings of concern for the victims and an intense despising of the invaders while the invasion of the ‘home lands’ of Maori does not engender the same level of emotion and concern for the Maori victims.”
Tariana Turia drew comparisons between the European colonisation of New Zealand and the Nazi holocaust: “Do you consider for example the effects of the trauma of colonisation? I understand that much of the research done in this area has focused on the trauma suffered by the Jewish survivors of the holocaust of World War Two. What seems to not have received similar attention is the holocaust suffered by indigenous people including Maori as a result of colonial contact and behaviour.”
And in her speech she reflected on the healing power of money, wondering how much “compensation” would be needed to alleviate the “intergenerational damage” done to Maori people.
This final point puts the Maori grievance philosophy into perspective – the perceived wrongs to ancestors who are long since dead will not be forgotten by their largely non-Maori relatives (thanks to rapid intermarriage) until each generation of taxpayers are forced to pay through the nose. A report prepared for Labour Prime Minister David Lange in 1989 by Richard Hill of the Justice Department documents the on-going pressure by claimants to settle claims, detailing how some of them had been settled numerous times. It brings into question the honesty of today’s claimants who conveniently forget that their grievances have already been fully settled years ago.
Read the whole article here
18 thoughts on “Muriel Flays Maori Party”
I grant you Lisa G, I am (not) clever……I therefore need your assistance with this.
Is there a relationship between "bodelicious",and "crodelicious" ?.
Could you demonstrate please ?
hi Sam – you're conceding others (whoever) were here fist and Maoris inherited NZ – history started 600 years ago (period). [And of course, you assume no violence by Maoris occurred to force this inheritance, right?]
Regardless, even if you are correct: what does the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi mean? I thought Maori leaders agreed to accept British rule, didn't they?
Or is it they really do want to own NZ now that all the development work has been done by British and other immigrants who turned NZ into the lovely country she is today?
That is what is seems since it is written as their political party goals: to re-negogiate Treaty of Waitangi! (buyers remorse for 150 years?!)
If we all live under British rule "now", should we all play by the "same" rules / laws as "New Zealanders"?
If so, then I still want to know why do 15% of the population (Maoris) deserve all sorts of free stuff & extra special treatment? Isn't that "reparations" and will it ever end?
Don't the rest of us deserve a better treatment?
How about British (or other) descendents getting land/sea etc because they are the ones who actually developed NZ?
… just some suggestions
The claim to the seabed and foreshore is based on documented unrelinquished previous ownership, not "we were here first".
Just like anybody else who inherits something.
Mad conspiracy theories about Celtic discovery simply don't cut it in the real world. I once heard some loony claimthe Chinese discovered New Zealand – so what? Are we going to hand the country over to China on that basis?
Steve, I'm sure you don't mean little ol' me.
Je suis American and quite bodalicious by the way (as in 70s slang meaning awesome or sweet).
Is your ugliness you have nothing to add to the discussion and you are in sitting in a corner having a random tantrum?
Oh God ! We've got a classic Ugly American in our midst……
Sam B – Just trying to clarify, Maori party was formed just 5 years ago in 2004 based on the concept of they own NZ land and sea because they were "here first"?
Is this correct?
Maori, in past few decades or longer, argue treaty of Waitangi isn't fair and European rule/the crown "stole" their land/sea?
Is this correct?
Well if I'm following the historical research so far which is being hidden(?), Celts (or others) were here first and Maoris killed them all off… umm, so the land wasn't theirs to start with.
Is that correct?
Eg if Celts (or others) were in NZ first, this blows the "we're here first" argument out of the water (or land) … eh?
"what is the actual point of having a NZ political party only based on race?"
It isn't based on race – it has Pakeha members. It's based on culture, in much the same way that the Labour party had its roots in European labour struggles, in British political traditions and uses the English language.
Actually, the Maori party has adopted a great deal from both Maori and Pakeha traditions, so maybe it should be called The Real Kiwi Party?
I m waiting for you.
Watch your back
From Timor with love
Hmm, good link to Celt history – fascinating Celts may have been in NZ first!
This could really change NZ history … so I could understand why Maori's would want to block it. Definitely would put the old kibosh on their reparation claims, eh.
So are Celts then due reparations or shore & seabed rights?
The celts were here first. Those who came to be known as Maori were abandoned on the shore in 1422 by their Chinese slave master, Zheng He. Check out http://www.kilts.co.nz/mhorruairidh.htm if you want to know more.
Yes, the indigenous people of the Chatham Islands…
Sorry guess that should be "Moriori" per: http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm
The "Maorioris"? Good grief!
Steve, methinks you are trying way to hard to be clever.
What does having a Mulatto temporarily in the White House have anything remotely to do with what a political group based only on race is up to this week?
The complaint is still colonialism? Well, if "everyone" agrees reparations were already given to Maoris, but they will NEVER be happy, what to do?
Is the conclusion all non-full-blooded Maoris leave NZ?
We all cut ties and say, sorry, you're right, colonialism sucks, we're sorry, toodle loo…
Wait… Maorioris. They should be the only ones to stay then…
Crap, we all have to leave…
I appreciate that Muriel Newman will express as she does. She's ACT and therefore dispositionally unable to acknowledge the enduring cruelties of colonialism.
That is ACT…..live in a fantasy world of construct equation and bugger the human beings left in the wake of the "pretty" equation. An unabashed abuse of "idealism" and quite immature really.
Far worse however is the ludicrous commentary of the social retards, silly old Trevor Loudon amongst them, who've fallen over in nausea and worse at that unreliable cow Democracy installing a black man in the White House.
Well….suffer on you mugs !
Since the Celts were hear first there should be a celtic party.
Thanks for this.
Very interesting. I keep wondering why there aren't other ethnic parties in NZ? Why isn't there an Indian Party, Chinese Party, Samoan Party, Tongan Party, Irish Party, Ethopian Party, etc… (ok, u get my drift)…
Have a party based on race is very odd to me and seems separatist?
Dr. Muriel's article seems spot on.
But let's pretend she isn't correct. If she is so off base, what is the actual point of having a NZ political party only based on race?