Support the Hikoi

[Olive]

Here's a link to the donations page.   https://app.koha.kiwi/events/hikoi-mo-te...i-eru-kapa

Every little bit helps support the kaupapa.

[Lilith7]

The writer/documentary maker Bryan Bruce is joining it today apparently, not sure if temporary or for the rest of the journey though.

[dken31]

Genuine question: If the Treaty is a "living document" and as relevant today as it was 180 years ago, and NZ is still today a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, what should the situation be in 500 years time (assuming of course, for the sake of discussion, that NZ is still a nation in 500 years time)?

Even in 500 years, should NZ still be a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, where the two "sides" can be in some way distinguished? Because any truly rational and logical person can surely see that that is forever going to maintain and under-current of discontent.

Or, if in 500 years NZ citizens will by then all just be "NZrs" (albeit with many varied ancestries), at what point is that reached?

[zqwerty]

Maori are, and always were, and always will be "the people of the land".

[Lilith7]

An estimated 35 thousand packed parliament grounds. David Seymour ventured out briefly, accompanied by four uniformed cops & three diplomatic protection officers.

I think he perhaps deserves a massive thank you for having unified so many people against what he wants to do...

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/te-t...nt-grounds

[dken31]

So in 500 or even 1,000 years time, "Maori" should still be formally distinguished as separate from the rest of society (intermingling perhaps, but separate nonetheless) and afforded a special place under the law? That just doesn't seem like a great way to build the cohesion and unity required for a prosperous society.

[king1]

Genuine question: If the Treaty is a "living document" and as relevant today as it was 180 years ago, and NZ is still today a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, what should the situation be in 500 years time (assuming of course, for the sake of discussion, that NZ is still a nation in 500 years time)? 

Even in 500 years, should NZ still be a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, where the two "sides" can be in some way distinguished?  Because any truly rational and logical person can surely see that that is forever going to maintain and under-current of discontent.

Or, if in 500 years NZ citizens will by then all just be "NZrs" (albeit with many varied ancestries), at what point is that reached?

I would think that fostering peace and harmony in the here and now would be far more preferable to crystal ball gazing.  

The discontent you speak of has only become an issue from pandering to silly coalition terms in order to maintain a fragile agreement.  No one except Act and their supporters seem to have any issues with Maori and the Treaty obligations New Zealand observes

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I know how this land enters the blood and bones of those of us blessed enough to live our lives here. I know too how having the Treaty makes us a unique country among the many colonised nations of the world and how important it is to those tangata whenua we share this country with. Including the one I gave birth to, and the mokopuna she has given me. It is about respect. It is about continuing to uplift tangata whenua, and being mindful of all that we have gained at their expense. It is about denying racism, and valuing the gift that is this nation. It is about my pride in being a New Zealander, by birth, by choice, and by generational sacrifice by my warrior ancestors.

So I support the hikoi, I have made my public submission to Parliament on the bill, and I am immensely proud to be one of those pakeha who have also stood up to demand our leadership honours the Treaty.

https://action.greens.org.nz/tp_quick_subsguide

[Praktica]

Thanks for the link, Hunni - I've signed.

[harm_less]

Genuine question: If the Treaty is a "living document" and as relevant today as it was 180 years ago, and NZ is still today a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, what should the situation be in 500 years time (assuming of course, for the sake of discussion, that NZ is still a nation in 500 years time)? 

Even in 500 years, should NZ still be a partnership between Maori and non-Maori, where the two "sides" can be in some way distinguished?  Because any truly rational and logical person can surely see that that is forever going to maintain and under-current of discontent.

Or, if in 500 years NZ citizens will by then all just be "NZrs" (albeit with many varied ancestries), at what point is that reached?

How about we just work on keeping things on an even keel for the meantime and ignore any "500 years time" whataboutism?

You only have to look across the Tasman to see how disfunctional multicultural relations could have been if not for a well thought out document that ensured our indigenous population a reasonable 'shake of the stick'. The Treaty has served NZ well for the last 180+ years so how about we give it another 100 or so years before we start putting a best before date on it?

[Olive]

So in 500 or even 1,000 years time, "Maori" should still be formally distinguished as separate from the rest of society (intermingling perhaps, but separate nonetheless) and afforded a special place under the law?  That just doesn't seem like a great way to build the cohesion and unity required for a prosperous society.

Oh for Heaven's sake.   500 years?   That is a crude example of argument ad absurdum.   We'll be lucky to have a further 50 years even with serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions.   I'm concerned with present day rebalancing and redress of the historical inequities which resulted from colonisation.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I just watched David Seymour suggest New Zealanders weren't mature enough to understand what his bill is all about.

It's called gaslighting, David, and it is a really bad look to do that when being as generous as I can be, you represent less than 8 % of those New Zealanders.

[Olive]

I just watched David Seymour suggest New Zealanders weren't mature enough to understand what his bill is all about.

It's called gaslighting, David, and it is a really bad look to do that when being as generous as I can be, you represent less than 8 % of those New Zealanders.

And now the petition has more than 252,000 signatures, i.e. more than the total votes for ACT in the last election.

https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitio...iples-bill

[dken31]

A petition able to be signed online is somewhat meaningless in relation to a national issue as it is easily able to be signed internationally. As such, the 252K very likely includes many non-NZrs.

With regard to my 500 year question, China has been around for more than 2,000 years while the Roman empire lasted for roughly 1,000. So it isn't ridiculously impossible that NZ might still be a country in 500 years time.

The point of my question was that I (incorrectly as it turns out) assumed that even those on this forum that are currently in favour of differential (preferential) recognition of Maori would at least be rational and honest enough to concede that it will have to come to an end at some point, with "500 years" being so far in the future that it would be easy enough to agree that it would have happened by then. But, instead, most seem to be clinging to the (in my opinion, ridiculous) notion that "Maori" will forever be a distinctly identifiable group, separate from other NZrs, and that they should forever be afforded a special place of privilege in NZ based on some of their distant ancestors having arrived here a before other peoples ancestors for as long as NZ is a nation. And, somehow that is the best way to "unify" NZ.

[dken31]

I see this thing as a little bit like a marriage where spouse A already owned a house before spouse A and spouse B got together. Then, subsequent to getting married, both spouses have done a huge amount of work improving the house and mortgage payments have come out of their joint account etc. A very significant portion of the current value of the house comes from spouse B's investment.

If spouse A keeps their prior ownership front & centre of the relationship, there will never be true unity in the marriage. For the marriage to truly prosper and flourish, it has to become "their" house, with spouse A's prior ownership becoming an interesting historical fact but no longer of current relevance. If, instead, spouse A wishes it to be continuously acknowledged, they will be instead forever just be awkward flatmates, with spouse B resenting the investment they've put in to "not their house".

Additional details to acknowledge:
- both spouse A and B were pretty nasty in the past and did horrible things to themselves and each other, however spouse B was able to do more harm purely due to being stronger (rather than due to worse intent). This is in no way justifiable but is in the past and must be forgiven if the marriage is to have any chance of success.

- Spouse A wasn't actually looking for a suitor at the time, however chose to marry spouse B so as to avoid a third person from muscling on in and just taking the house for themselves without bothering to marry spouse A. Not a great foundation for a marriage perhaps, but marriages of necessity can be still be successful.

- Divorce isn't an option in this scenario as all non-Maori in NZ can't just "go back where they came from".

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Hmmmm, but there are good marriages and bad ones. And the divorce rates suggest a lot of bad ones. Stats also suggest interesting trends. Married men live longer than single ones, but single women live longer than married women. The increasing trend away from marriage as a formalised relationship also leaves room for speculation about the experiences within marriages.

This social change could be said to mirror the other trend towards being 'woke', or awakened to the challenges inherent in our communities, challenges like inequity, racism, misogyny, authoritative power abuses, income and access disparities. Real challenges, that exist despite decades of deliberate social blindness. These challenges are absolutely clear and present in our censuses, our researched statistics, our economies, our governance, our laws. Their existence is obvious, undeniable, and continuing.

To use your narrative, this marriage is struggling, separation is being encouraged by some, and fought against by others. And no, divorce is not an option, not because one spouse has nowhere to retreat to, but because both partners have too much to lose and so much more to gain, by going to counselling rather than to blows.

As the hikoi showed us, we need to talk to each other, and even more importantly, we need to listen. Because what is good for one, really good, is good for all of us.

[Lilith7]

Hmmmm, but there are good marriages and bad ones. And the divorce rates suggest a lot of bad ones. Stats also suggest interesting trends. Married men live longer than single ones, but single women live longer than married women. The increasing trend away from marriage as a formalised relationship also leaves room for speculation about the experiences within marriages.

This social change could be said to mirror the other trend towards being 'woke', or awakened to the challenges inherent in our communities, challenges like inequity, racism, misogyny, authoritative power abuses, income and access disparities. Real challenges, that exist despite decades of deliberate social blindness. These challenges are absolutely clear and present in our censuses, our researched statistics, our economies, our governance, our laws. Their existence is obvious, undeniable, and continuing.

To use your narrative, this marriage is struggling, separation is being encouraged by some, and fought against by others. And no, divorce is not an option, not because one spouse has nowhere to retreat to, but because both partners have too much to lose and so much more to gain, by going to counselling rather than to blows.

As the hikoi showed us, we need to talk to each other, and even more importantly, we need to listen. Because what is good for one, really good, is good for all of us.

David Seymour has his answer to his views with regard to the treaty. That he clearly dislikes that answer & has attempted to write the reaction off as being due to 'immaturity & a lack of understanding' really says everything about him.

You have to wonder what his reaction might have been, had there been an overwhelming response in favour of his ideas; would he:

A) have claimed that really, Kiwis weren't 'mature enough' to understand? Or would he 

B) have embraced the reaction enthusiastically & continued with his plan...??

[Praktica]

My vision for 500 years time (if we haven't wrecked the place), is that we will all be one people - Maori.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Coffee coloured people by the score...

We boomers had great music.

Seymour is gaslighting us. Stupid boy, he needs to realise his 8.64% of the overall vote does not entitle him to be the boss, the tail does not wag the dog. Something Mr Luxon could do with remembering too. Be nice to see that man exercise a little of the passion Hana demonstrated in the House. Putting Seymour in his place would be a good start.

[zqwerty]

Seymour is an autistic little wanker who's still trying to make reality fit and be like his words, rather than making words to describe reality all around him.

He is over simplifying reality to fit the poor command of words he has at his disposal.

It's a common thing that stupid simple minded people do because they think that the language they use is the be all and end all and not just an attempt to describe reality itself.