Iwi Enablement Bill

The National Government’s Iwi Enablement Bill

aka the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill

Passed into law by Parliament on 6 April, 2017

Most everywhere you look, only appalled references to that slow motion train wreck disaster Bill can be found. No one except the National Party, the Maori Party and their collective sycophants ever said anything even vaguely complimentary about the Bill.

The only good thing about it will be the end of the racist National government, come September. But even that is fraught as Labour and the Greens are every bit as – if not more so – racist as National.

As for the NZ First party, Winston will always say the things which he thinks will garner votes, but there will rarely be any implementation. Just think back to 1996 and the baubles and trinkets of power which he so loudly decried. Then, when they were offered to him, along with the title of ‘Treasurer,’ he lunged with both arms outstretched.

But, back to the RMA Iwi Enablement Bill. There was so much political smog, smoke & mirrors and distracting detail that the critical point was effectively obscured. That was that the already existing racist provisions in the Resource Management Act were being strengthened and added to.

1Law4All’s position is unambiguously clear. Only councillors elected by all ratepayers on the roll should be making decisions which affect those ratepayers.

From slippery smithy came this:

The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill will get better outcomes. The new arrangements will clarify which iwi need to be consulted, and on what issues. Some councils already have these arrangements and they are proving to work well. By agreement, large numbers of consents are not referred to iwi, as they are not related to issues in which iwi have an interest.

Whether the old arrangements were bad or the new ones are better does not matter, in the slightest. In any Council, there is no place for any political or decision-making arrangements which favour, include or involve any particular racial group not elected to that Council by all ratepayers.

Period. Finito. End of story.

Councillor Protests At Tokenism

Councillor Protests At “Tokenism”

A Whangarei district councillor has gone on strike from a committee in protest over the appointment of a paid, micro-Maori adviser, saying he has no interest in participating in meetings with “race-based appointments.”

Councillor Stuart Bell said while he was pro-micro-Maori engagement, he saw the appointment of the adviser to the planning committee, otherwise made up of elected councillors, as “tokenism” and said it was actually offensive to micro-Maori.

“I boycotted [the] meeting, and may boycott more in the future, because in my opinion there is currently very little or no benefit in having race-based appointments of non-elected members on council committees.”

Mayor Mai said she was 100 per cent proud of the new appointment, and said micro-Maori had a “whole way of thinking about the world, and the way the community was made up” that differed from Pakeha councillors. “It gives us a governance perspective from a Maori world-view as opposed to a Pakeha world-view.”

Councillor Bell said that he’d been elected to represent the whole community and he’s being told because he has white skin he can’t do that effectively? “We’ve been told about the micro-Maori lens. But even within micro-Maoridom, everyone looks at life differently,” he said.

Racially-selected adviser Julianne Chetham said that she was not worried, saying that she hoped Cr Bell would come back at some point. It’s a learning process for us, after all, she said. (But an earning process for her!)

The decision to hire an adviser followed a tense debate at December’s planning committee meeting, with mayor Sheryl Mai using her casting vote to decide the 7-7 split.

excerpted from the Northern Advocate

About That Different World View

Man Caught Taking 20 x Legal Paua Limit

A Napier man has pleaded guilty to taking more than 20 times the legal limit of paua, with all but one of them being undersized. Karaitiana James Lee Nissen, 31, appeared at Napier District court and admitted taking 266 paua from Waipatiki Beach in March 2015.

Nissen claimed he had customary authorisation for the diving which was later revealed to have been obtained by an associate of his, but that permission did not authorise Nissen to gather and take the amount of paua he was found with.

Evidence presented said that Nissen had then obtained customary authorisation after being caught, but later admitted this was inappropriate and he had obtained it to try and cover up what he had taken. The reason he gave for taking about 150 paua was for a hui.

– excerpted from Hawke’s Bay Today

Our Sneaky Anti-Democratic Dictators

Our Sneaky Anti-Democratic Dictators

new_flag[1]Accountable democracy in local government is a cornerstone of our constitutional tradition and a valuable tool in the hands of NZ ratepayers and citizens. Any tampering with this age old right – such as special race-based and un¬ democratic Maori wards – is detestable to most people and a crime against NZ’s democracy.

In the past, when a special Maori ward has been proposed for a council, ratepayers’ polls have consistently rejected race-based wards, preferring accountable-to-ratepayers’ democracy. A recent such rejection being in New Plymouth where in May, 2015, 82% of ratepayers said No to the creation of Maori wards. They feared that unelected part-Maori appointees, unanswerable to ratepayers at election time, would make huge demands on the council’s purse. That’s what happened in Auckland where special Maori appointees have demanded $295 million of ratepayers’ money for their own special, race-based purposes such as the upkeep of maraes.

Effectively, there’s been a nationwide ratepayer revolution in which all polls have shown the natural hostility of ratepayers to having race-based council appointees. Especially as they would spend ratepayers’ money on racially biased projects. Faced with those results, the all-time National Party trickster, Christopher Whinlayson, is now imposing those very same burdens on ratepayers without them having any say or redress in the matter. He’s doing it through parliamentary legislation imposing Treaty settlement obligations on local councils. For example, in 2012 National imposed a treaty settlement “co-governance” agreement on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, which was thereby statutorily FORCED to set up a co-governance committee with the Ngati Pahuawera, to cover all natural resources in the area.

This important regional planning committee now comprises 10 democratically elected councillors and 10 unaccountable-to-ratepayers iwi appointees with two chairs – one appointed by the council and the other by iwi. All are full voting members and so the numerically small and unelected tribal representatives have an effective veto over regional resource management. The death of accountable democracy. Again, the National Government – under the evil influence of arch-racist Whinlayson – was the murderer. Just as Whinlayson stole the beaches off NZrs, so is he busy enriching his mates at kiwis’ expense by granting the tribal elite billions of our tax dollars and public resources by means of his hearsay-based and bogus – if not fraudulent – “Treaty settlements.”

And yet the victims of these thefts – blind bigots born with a blue ribbon choker – still rush to the polls to vote for that “nice,” smiling assassin, Mr. Shonkey.

Will The Air You Breathe Be Next?!

Will The Air You Breathe Be Next?!

water cartoonCoin-in-the-slot-breathometers coming to a chest near you?

You whaaat?

In seeking to deprive Kiwis of their fresh water, National is using the same process set up for the theft of the beaches from the NZ public via the Marine and Coastal Area Act. I.e. Mostly huis on maraes, effectively keeping the non-part-Maori public out of all consultation. National is now repeating the trick with an even more important resource: your fresh water. That’s NZ’s lakes, rivers and water, without which you could not live. Will the air be next?

The racist and bullying Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group gave the government until 6th February 2016 to sort out their claim to own the water. This particular group of bullies wants ownership of all Crown owned river and lake beds and the water in them as well as the title to the nation’s fresh water. Yes—the very rain that falls out of the sky!

They are demanding joint management agreements with all councils. Effectively a veto right. Already, the Gisborne District Council has been suckered. It has betrayed future generations with its August, 2015 decision to set up a joint management agreement with a sub-tribe of Ngati Porou to manage the Waiapu River catchment.

As Dr. John Robinson, an author of the recently published book, One Treaty, One Nation, pointed out in a letter to the Gisborne Herald; The waters – the rivers, lakes and sea – are part of our commons, the property of us all, for general use without regard for position or race. Ideally, maybe. But that’s not how Whinlayson’s sees your future NZ.

Another demand of the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group is for a $1 billion fund paid for by you and me – the ever-conned NZ taxpayer – to an iwi approved entity . . . to address capacity and capability, including mechanisms to assist decision making, water quality and economic mechanisms. Whatever that may mean!

In an act of egregious duplicity, it is whispered that an appeasing Shonkey and his hoary henchman Chris Whinlayson will announce their surrender to the part-Maori we own the water demand just before Christmas. That way, their thieving, if not treacherous act of appeasement and capitulation to racism will be obscured by the Xmas festivities and holiday distractions. Shades of the evil communist Stalin – the man whom Shonkey’s father adored and who fought for in the Spanish Civil War.

The tactic is the same trick that Whinlayson used when he released his controversial Consultation Document Reviewing the Foreshore & Seabed Act 2004 on 31 March, 2010. I.e. Just two days before the Easter holiday break and the start of the end-of-first term school holidays when so many people had other pre-occupations.

To sweeten this bitter, racist pill and make plain National’s boundless deceit, Shonkey will tell the mostly terminally-gullible NZ voters that the tribes will not have ownership of water. Rather, they will have rights over it. But rights to something as vital as water is tantamount to full ownership and Shonkey has already largely conceded that point. I.e. those water rights will be akin to Whinlayson’s customary marine title – de facto ownership of the foreshore & seabed.

This racist grab for the nation’s water is such a threat to us and future generations that it must not be allowed to happen. Everyone who cares for New Zealand must make such a clamour that even a government as insensitive and as treacherous as the Shonkey administration – once again dancing to the tune of the tribal elite – will not be allowed to get away with such a crime against the commons.

Hugh Barr

Mahia Peninsula Grab Public Meeting

Mahia Peninsula Grab Public Meeting.

At a 7.00pm meeting on 2 February, approximately 100 people turned out to hear Dr Hugh Barr speak about the claim for the entire Mahia peninsula, under the Marine & Coastal Area Act [MCA] drafted by Chris Finlayson, favoured friend to iwis, arch enemy of kiwis. Information about the meeting was in an earlier blog post, here.

Somewhat surprisingly, the local paper turned out a reporter and photographer.  See that article here – and comment while you can. In that article, note the assertion by Ms Tangiora that the claim was to provide for the protection of burial grounds.

Who’s kidding who? Since when did part-Maori start interring bodies below the mean high water mark? Or at sea, over the side of a waka hearse? The MCA only allows for claims for foreshore and seabed areas from the high tide mark, out to sea.

Ms Tangiora spoke briefly to the meeting, but was unable or unwilling to say how she or the claimant group would prove or be able to prove that they had: exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

58 Customary marine title
(1) Customary marine title exists in a specified area . . . if the applicant group—
(b) has, in relation to the specified area,—
(i) exclusively used and occupied it from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption;

As one observer put it:

as proving exclusive largely uninterrupted use was virtually impossible, why bother? What’s the real purpose here? What are we [second class kiwis] not being told about the actual intention?


Later News

In his Waitangi Day HB Today editorial comment, Doug Laing promotes again the apartheid way – something his editor has gained a reputation for, despite being an ex-pat South African.

Obviously brainwashed, Laing trots out the canard of ‘historical grievances,’ implying that such relate to the Rongomaiwahine claim, despite the Mahia Peninsula claim having absolutely nothing to do with such alleged and unspecified grievances.  Read the editorial text for yourself:

Editorial: We must all help resolve grievances

By Doug Laing
6 Feb 2015

Those claiming Waitangi Day is being hijacked by radical Maori groups for political purposes may ponder the antics of an outdoor recreation group which is opposing customary rights applications being made under the Marine and Coastal Area Act.

The Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations, or more particularly spokesman Hugh Barr, staged a meeting at Mahia over the Christmas holidays and another last Monday, claiming, “Prime Minister John Key gave away public ownership of the coastal area”.

Mr Barr has claimed bach owners, fishing enthusiasts, surfers and boaties face losing access to the coast, or at least may have to pay heaps for it, if the applications are granted.

This may also be seen as politically highjacking the agenda, for it moves to pre-empt a process which is yet to be undertaken. The tone of this opposition – “echo of apartheid”, really? – and claiming the process to be secretive is both unhelpfully emotive and mischievous in the context of the ground on which we stand today.

Waitangi Day is, indeed, a day on which we should all be thinking about how we can all contribute to a process of resolving historical grievances and issues, which in some cases can only ever be modestly addressed.

Thus, rather than to seek to deprive anyone of any of the rights they currently have, the foremost desire of iwi making applications under the act, and claimants, is to ensure beaches and such resources are available to and accessible by all, and hopefully in better nick than they may be at this point in time.

It is not an exclusive concept at all, and seeks to protect resources for all of us, and all of those who shall come after us, our children, and grandchildren, our tamariki and mokopuna, the next generations.

– Hawke’s Bay Today

Who Will You Vote For?

While many issues will influence your decision on Election Day (20th September 2014), we believe the entrenchment of racial bias, privilege and corruption in our government and legal system will be the most damaging to New Zealand and our way of life in the long term.

Never in the world’s history has legal racial separatism & preference led to anything other than exploitation, resentment & violence.

So how can our politicians be so stupid as to continue pushing us down this path? Short-term power? Salaries? Status? Ego? Fawning over the rich & powerful? Future money-making opportunities?

They cannot understand history or common human psychology. Perhaps they simply don’t give a damn about what our children will suffer. Public service? Yeah right.

Your Party Vote is Crucial.

Party votes determine the percentage of parliamentary seats any party can claim. So choose the candidate who works best for your electorate, but please consider carefully your choice of Party Vote.

To guide you, we have prepared a summary of where the parties stand. It’s objective, as 1Law4All’s Board comes from all political persuasions!



Political Parties

What They Say
on Racial Matters

What They Actually Do/Did Our Voting
National While in opposition, National spoke out for one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders (“One law for all”) & on removing the Maori-only parliamentary seats. BUT since being in government, they have promoted separatism and privilege based on racial ancestry for the benefit of the tribal elite. In 2008, Key unnecessarily invited the Maori Party into coalition & radically extended legal racial separatism and privilege in NZ – more than any other government e.g. support for the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which promotes separatism; transfer of NZ’s coastline (foreshore & seabed) from public to iwi control; Maori Statutory Board’s extensive & undemocratic control of “Super Auckland”; significant transfers of government assets to iwi on spurious grounds; co-governance of public resources, etc. NO
Labour All people should have equal access to all social, economic, cultural, political and legal spheres, regardless of wealth or social position….. BUT they have promoted separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry….. although under Helen Clark, Labour resisted the extremes demanded by radical Maori. But who knows what Cunliffe is willing to do? NO
Greens Numerous race-based policies; no mention of equality. They promote extensive separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry. NO
Maori It’s all in the name! They have radically promoted separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry for the benefit of the tribal elite; want to take democratic power from the people by entrenching racial privilege in a new Constitution; have achieved extensive “settlements”, “co-governance” and control for the benefit of iwi corporate elite and are extending the ways & means by which other New Zealanders will be forced to keep paying out forever.  NO
NZ First Policy-making to be based on need, not race, creed or colour; the future of the Maori seats is a decision for the people.  Winston has always promoted equality when in opposition – he tends to say what we want to hear; BUT when in power, he has taken the baubles and delivered nothing (other than the “gold card”).Note: In 2006, ex-NZF MP Doug Woolerton did introduce a Private Members Bill seeking to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. It failed to get sufficient support from other parties to pass. A prospect if in a Coalition. But would he ever make racial equality a bottom line before giving support? On past performance, this is unlikely.
ACT Equality before the law; remove all race-based appointments & ensure that the Waitangi Tribunal process ends. BUT has supported the National Coalition’s radically racist agenda. Also delivered the Super Auckland Council structure, which has resulted in unelected & unaccountable iwi elite control at Councillor level & throughout the bureaucracy (i.e. the imposition of unlimited/undefined iwi processes and taxes on private property owners in the Unitary Plan; co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf). NO
United Says very little. Has gone along with whatever is necessary to keep the coalition perks in place. NO
Conservative Wants the one electoral roll; an end to Treaty claims; removal of differential treatment based on race; a repeal of the foreshore and seabed legislation; the closing down of the Constitutional Review. Actions speak louder than words. They were the only political party (other than 1Law4All) to make a submission against the blatant racial bias of Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan. 

Otherwise yet to be proven.

Maybe, but the proof will be in the performance.
Internet Mana Extensive race-based policies include 100% of New Zealanders speaking Te Reo Māori by 2040; a new way in which political and legal power is structured in Aotearoa; “meaningful constitutional transformation”, etc. The Mana leader, Hone Harawira, is openly racist.
The Internet arm has demonstrated no principles other than self-interest.

What About 1Law4All?

Our registration as a political party has been delayed further by a Maori Party objection to the 1Law4All logo. It’s hard to fathom what grounds they might have, other than it represents a party calling for legal equality – something that is an anathema to the racist Maori Party.

But nevertheless, 1Law4All has had great difficulty in gathering resources – both financial and in terms of personnel. Too few people understand the threat as we do, or perhaps they see advantages in the wealth and power that comes with the tribal elite. Either way, they do not want to rock the boat.

So we are left with insufficient resources to credibly contest this year’s election. However, we are committed to the cause and will keep up our resistance – with your help.

URGENTLY WANTED – appropriately able people for volunteer operational roles:

• Secretary (or Treasurer)
• Database Manager
• Webmaster
• Marketing/Communications Manager
• Media Spokesperson

Participate in a campaign for change!
True democracy & racial equality is worth fighting for.

“Free at last!” [updated]

“Free at last!” [updated]

By Peter Cresswell of Not PC

Stephen Spielberg’s film on Lincoln dramatised the passing of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation—justifiably famous for freeing around 4 million slaves in North America, and beginning the removal of the stain of slavery from American law.

This, with the subsequent constitutional amendment outlawing slavery across the continent, was the culmination of an anti-slavery movement that swept the west in the nineteenth century, following on the heels of the movement for individual rights that swept the west in the eighteenth century.

Freeing the slaves was a necessary righting of a wrong that the gradual recognition of individual rights had made imperative.

Abolition began in the birthplace of individual rights, in Britain; the slave trade was abolished in the West Indies in 1807, and abolition exported across the British Empire, so that by 1835 the stain had been removed empire-wide.

And in 1840, a Treaty was signed in New Zealand that was as effective in freeing the slaves here as Lincoln’s later more famous document was over there.

And there were a lot of slaves to free.

It’s almost forgotten today, but when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed virtually every Maori in the country outside the tribal chiefs was a slave—and their life was cheap. There was a caste system in Maori tikanga, with the overwhelming majority, the slaves, enjoying no more rights than a dog.

The life of a slave was entirely forfeit to their master and his chief. One chief blew out the brains of his slave for failing to light his pipe in time.  Another because her husband had “cast her off for a season.” Slaves were taken in conquest, and killed as easily. They were taken on long journeys purely as a source of food, eaten when they were no longer needed as porters. Any person lacking position was “a tutua–a fellow [or woman] not worth a spike nail.” Until 1840, folk not worth a spike nail had no rights. They were chattel.

The “glory” of traditional Maori society, notes John Robinson in his book Two Cultures Meet, was the domain of only a few.

A history of this country must pay due regard to the experiences and fates of all Maori, including the dispossessed, the lower ranks, the slaves—and the women.  Then efforts can be made to improve the lives of all and longer focus on righting supposed wrongs to the few chiefs who benefited from tribalism.

For characters such as Jake Heke, whose tragedy is told in Alan Duff’s Once Were Warriors, the legacy of Maori society was not one of glory, but of slavery.

Jake asks his children, “Hey kids, Know what I inherited as a Maori? Jake asking our of the blue … Slaves … My family were slaves … My branch of the Heke line was descended from a slave … Five-hundred years of the slave curse bein’ on our heads.

On our heads, and also in their heads. Then and (for some) for ever more. Because the slave mind is a hard thing to shake off.

Californian columnist for The Free Radical Michael Vardoulis sent me a reflection from afar a while back on what Maori activists need to learn about independence and self-reliance from the likes of the late-career Malcolm X (right), who argued that if American blacks were ever to be truly free they needed to free themselves first—free themselves, like Jake had to, from their slave minds.

Says Michael:

Yes, Maori individuals have a lot fewer historical claim to bitterness than Afro Americans, or especially Native Americans and Hawaiians!  Whatever their legitimate complaints, at least New Zealanders never suffered the stain of slavery while the slaveholders proclaimed the protection for themselves of individual rights. 

Maoris are individuals whose ancestors were never enslaved — not at least after the British arrived.

But Maori individuals need to shake off the great state fixation too many seem obsessed with.  There is a kind of philosophical ‘judo’ that Malcolm X represents, insofar as the pride of self-reliance he talked about is essential to survival as an individual, and it would apply to Maori as well.  His message of “why look to your former ‘masters’ for anything, nor to  the government that supported them”?  The only thing a (insert arbitrary racial identity here) individual should seek from the government which supported their former master is to be left the hell alone!”

   The lesson that needs to be tattooed on the soul was expressed perfectly by Isabel Paterson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you’ve got” — including, if you let them, your pride in your self-reliance.  Self-reliance does not come from sucking nanny’s tit, or from the marshmallow embrace of collectivism — it comes from standing on one’s own feet and beginning to take responsibility for one’s own future as an individual.

And then we have the conclusions one can draw universally on the issue of ‘race’ from what Rand wrote so perfectly: the only genuine solution to racism is a colour-blind government supporting the same rights for all individuals as individuals; equality before the law; anything *other* than that merely perpetuates the evil of racism, and (not incidentally) the careers of political figures who benefit from the perpetuation of the problem rather than achieving solutions.

Liberty HAS been stolen from many different arbitrary groups (though compared to what others have suffered over history, including many Europeans it’s much harder to find in the case of post-1840 Maori) and in any case it’s ultimately irrelevant to the much more important issue of regaining that liberty, which can only be achieved in a society where only the rights of the individual are upheld regardless of any arbitrary ‘group’ status either placed upon them or with which they choose to identify.

   Hell, the Brits stomped all over my mother’s ancestors in Ireland, and the Turks all over my father’s ancestors in Greece.  I don’t go looking for handouts from Downing Street or Istanbul!  I just pursue a society in which the individual is protected from being interfered with, knowing as a result that no arbitrary group can be singled out either for persecution, or for restitution.  The people who stomped all over my ancestors are long dead and buried — those alive now bear no guilt for what their great-great-great grandparents did to mine.

But, I fear I preach to the choir.  It’s individuals of Maori, Afro-American or Native American backgrounds which need to ‘get it’… as my mentor Richard Boddie (right), a former student of Malcolm X, is fond of saying, “People are deluded en masse and enlightened one at a time.”

The lesson of Malcolm’s own growth and change over his life helps to show that lesson is true — and dangerous to those who would hope the lesson is never learned.

I think Michael makes some great points, don’ t you?.

The interested reader might appreciate in this context my earlier review of Spike Lee’s film Malcolm X’ that appeared in The Free Radical at the time of the film’s release.  [NB: Some light editing of Michael’s post has been done for sense and context.]


It has become somewhat fashionable of late to knock Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, and to pillory Lincoln himself as some kind of neo-fascist. As Thomas Sowell says sadly, “today we see the spectacle of pygmies sniping at this giant”–examples of which you can find in the comments section below.

Sowell takes to task these assorted pygmies and their ahistorical criticisms:

People who indulge themselves in this kind of self-righteous carping act as if Lincoln was someone who could do whatever he damn well pleased, without regard to the law, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. They might as well criticize him for not discovering a cure for cancer.
Fortunately, there is an excellent new [in 2005] book, titled “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation” by Professor Allen C. Guelzo of Gettysburg College, that sets Lincoln in the context of the world in which he lived.
Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.
Just one fact should give pause to Lincoln’s critics today: When Lincoln sat down to write the Emancipation Proclamation, the Supreme Court was still headed by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had issued the infamous Dred Scott decision, saying a black man had no rights which a white man needed to respect…
Professor Guelzo’s book does more than give us some sense of realism about a major event in American history. Perhaps if we come to understand the complexities and constraints of Lincoln’s turbulent times, we might not be so quick to seize opportunities to reduce other times — including our own — to cartoon-like simplicities that allow us to indulge in cheap self-righteousness when judging those who carry heavy responsibilities.

Perhaps those people that enjoyed this poorly-written smear of Lincoln should give Sowell’s points, and Guelzo’s book, some much needed thought.

PS: Here’s a question for you: How many know who the chap is in the picture above next to Old Abe? Answers on a postcard please. [And if you don’t know the name of that hero and about the Dred Scott decision and its implications, then please do some reading before offering up your opinions.]

To comment on this article, please click on the arrow button: Discussion Forum

Were Maori environmentalists?

Were Maori environmentalists?

By Peter Cresswell of Not PC

A friend who wrote a thesis several years ago on common law solutions to environmentalism asked me this question a few weeks ago, and I’ve only recently got around to answering (I’ve paraphrased the question just a little):

Q: How did Maori activists [he asks] attain the apparent status they now possess in the environmental movement? In other words, why do NZ environmentalists bow to Maori prejudices? When I wrote my thesis this absurdity was not evident as it is now. Please can anybody shed some light on this?

So here’s my rather belated answer.

On the facts of pre-European Maori environmental stewardship , the best I’ve read is a shortish piece by M.S. McGlone et al: ‘An Ecological Approach to the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand’ published in The Origins of the First New Zealanders [Auckland University Press, 1994.] Unfortunately, it’s not online (although I do quote from it briefly in this article), but it does rather give the lie to the idea of Maori as sound environmental stewards.

Take bird life for example.

“James et al estimate that untouched Oceania may have had more than 9000 bird species — more than the total of surviving species on Earth today. Most of this incredibly rich fauna was eliminated by the direct or indirect effect of [pre-European] settlement… The amount of accessible fat and protein per square kilometre on a Pacific island may have been unequalled anywhere in the world…

Direct evidence exists for this superabundance of bird and marine resources on unexploited islands… In the initial settlement period [of New Zealand], the early abundance of bird bone must have represented a truly incredible exploitation rate… [Yet] NZ midden evidence shows that the consistent exploitation of birds in the late prehisoric results in few bird-bone remains…

The extinction of birds other than moa and of reptiles, and the shrinking of the range of many other species are well-attested (Cassels 1984)… the absence of these species in natural deposits such as caves, swamps and sand dunes after about 1,000 years ago strongly suggests early and vigorous depletion…

In summary: the birds were being killed and eaten in great numbers, in complete disregard it seems of any long-term consequences.

The case is the same for New Zealand flora. Slash and burn agriculture “rapidly destroyed much of the forest cover… By 600 years [Before Present] many animals had been driven to extinction or close to it, and very large areas of country, even in remote inland South Island valleys, were being burnt regularly… A degree of burning may been beneficial, for a [short] time at least.”

However, over the longer term: “Extensive burning of inland valleys and ridges offered no obvious advantages in terms of food production…” The result of indigenous environmental stewardship over the longer term? Population grew rapidly in the North Island of NZ from 800 years BP, before slowing down about 400 years BP (following the major forest clearance phase) and plateauing about 200 years BP at about 100,000 when resources began diminishing (see graph at right).

After the initial settlement phase, New Zealand moved directly into a subsistence mode which characterised other island populations only during famine or when pushed into highly marginal lands… By the end of the prehistoric period New Zealand was no longer resource-rich, and the very scarcity of resources and reliance on hard-won wild foods had created a situation from which no larger political entities could easily arise.

So the idea of Maori as sound environmental stewards is not supported by the archaeological evidence. As ‘sustainable’ environmentalists they just weren’t. So how to explain then the apparent status they now possess in the environmental movement? The reason is more widespread than is contained in environmentalism alone.

I think there’s perhaps three legs in answer to the question, all related.

1. The Noble Savage

The first is the notion, first given currency by Rousseau, of the ‘Noble Savage’ — the romantic idea of wild, untamed human creatures ‘uncorrupted’ by civilisation. It might be noted that this creation of ‘romantic primitivism’ was postulated entirely without evidence.

As Roger Sandall amongst others has noted, “A ‘savage,” untouched by civilization, would be akin to an animal, and neither noble nor a good role model for a society. By viewing civilization as something that corrupts or taints a person’s pure or natural state, ‘new tribalists’ are succumbing, like Rousseau, to the romantic idea that the natural state of a human being, without the moderating effect of civilization, is somehow better. To the critics this notion is easily refutable, either by comparing human quality of life before civilization, or as humorist P.J. O’Rourke pointed out, by considering the natural state of children.”

In Sandall’s view, [summarises Wikipedia] romantic primitivism places far too high a value on cultures that were often characterised by, among other aspects, limited human rights, religious intolerance, disease and poverty. Other negative aspects he discusses include domestic oppression (usually of women and children), violence, clan/tribal warfare, poor care of the environment and considerable restriction on artistic freedom of expression.

‘The Four Stages of Noble Savagery: The Moral Transiguration of the Tribal World‘ is the Appendix to Sandall’s book, ‘The Culture Cult,’ and is highly readable on this question. He concludes by discussing the ‘Disneyfication’ of the ‘Noble Savage’:

Sentimentalism begets puerility. The ruthless scalpers of yesterday become Loving Persons. One-time ferocious fighters are discovered to be Artists at Heart. Hollywood becomes interested…
Combined with this a suffocating religiosity now descends on public discussion, enforced by priests and judges, journalists and teachers, poets and politicians, all of whom claim that native culture possesses a “spirituality” found nowhere else. Soon the primitive is elevated above the civilized. In the words of one observer in New Zealand it is said that the whites “have lost the appreciation for magic and the capacity for wonder” while white culture, besides being “out of step with nature. . . pollutes the environment and lacks a close tie with the land.”

Few are unkind enough to note that “the imagined ancestors with whom the Pacific is being repopulated”—Wise Ecologists, Mystical Sages, and Pacifist Saints—“are in many ways creations of Western imagination.”

Just like Pocohantas. Or Chief Seattle.

2. ‘The National Question’

The second leg is specifically political, the idea that Lenin called ‘The National Question’ — a specific strategy adopted by Marxist-Leninists to help destabilise a colonised country by use of the grievances, real or otherwise, of indigenous populations.

This movement came to attention in NZ in the late seventies (made most visible with the ‘Treaty is a Fraud’ movement), and you might say that reached its apogee under Neville Bolger’s appeasing stewardship (when it suddenly transmogrified into an’Honour the Treaty’ movement).

When mainstream Marxism collapsed following the collapse of the Berlin Wall — and with it any claim that Marxist societies would ever be able to produce (or be good environmental stewards) — rather than give up their authoritarianism, the custodians of ‘The National Question’ stampeded into local and overseas environmental movements, as I’m sure Trevor Loudon will attest. Consequently, the numbers of ‘National Question’ adherents and other fellow-travelers (the gullible type whom Lenin called Useful Idiots) who call themselves ‘green’ but are still red on the inside would seem to be quite large.

3. Multiculturalism

The third leg, related to and in some sense underpinning both, is the notion of ‘multiculturalism’ — the idea that all cultures are equal (apart, that is, from the cultures of the west). ‘Multi-culti is one of the many foolish notions of postmodernism, (encompassing both moral relativism and political correctness) that captured the academies in recent years.

Naturally when the least are made equal to the best, the least win out. If all cultures are asserted (without evidence) to be equal, then one is disarmed from finding evidence that would disprove such an assertion. To find and assert such evidence would, according to the multiculturalist, be ‘racist.’

The consequence is this: If one is disarmed from judging a culture — which is one of the goals of moral relativism — then the worst cultures are left free from moral judgement, and moral judgement itself becomes bereft of any evidential-base: the only immorality to a multiculturalist is to challenge the assertions of multiculturalism. That too would be racist.

But as Thomas Sowell points out, you can judge cultures, and in fact if human life is our standard then morality demands that we should judge them.


Cultures [he insists] are not museum-pieces. They are the working machinery of everyday life. Unlike objects of aesthetic contemplation, working machinery is judged by how well it works, compared to the alternatives. The judgment that matters is not the judgment of observers and theorists, but the judgment implicit in millions of individual decisions to retain or abandon particular cultural practices, decisions made by those who personally benefit or who personally pay the price of inefficiency and obsolescence.”

Anyway, on this last point you might want to have a good look at:

– Cassells, R., 1984: ‘The role of prehistoric man in the faunal extinctions of New Zealand and other Pacific Islands,’ in Martin et al Quaternary Extinctions, Uni of Arizona Press.
– James et al, 1987: ‘Radiocarbon dates on bones of extinct birds from Hawaii,’ Proceedings of the Nat. Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84.
– Leach, H.M., 1980: ‘Incompatible land use patterns in Maori food production,’ New Zealand Archaeological Ass. Newsletter, v.23.



To discuss this article, please click on the arrow button: Discussion Forum

Excusing ‘the bash’

Excusing ‘the bash’

By Peter Cresswell of Not PC

An unusually patronising article appeared in the NZ Herald, back in July 2006, purporting to explain once again why, as one do-gooder put it on ‘Campbell Live,’ “we’re killing our chooldren” ( which once again had me yelling, “What’s with the ‘we,’ white man? You speak for yourself. I didn’t kill them!”)

Anyway, the article by Simon Collins entitled ‘Salvation Through Racial Pride and Self-Awareness’ was as thoroughly racist, collectivist and wet as it sounds from that title, and full of excuses for Maori who bash their kids, and for women (and men) trapped by the “male will for power and control.”

“Why are we still where we are?” asks one “former drug dealer” who has now exchanged dependency on drugs to a dependency on racial identity and the supernatural (he is now a pastor who, he proudly says, “chose the Charisma church because its pastor was Maori”). Once again, you might ask “What’s with the ‘we’? ” This chap’s ‘insights’ seemed to be included as some sort of expert or specially insightful commentary on why “we Maori” are killing “our” children — and a better example of pathetically inept group-think on such a tragic topic would be hard to find.

“The way we think and the way we see things is totally different to our European brothers and sisters,” says this idiot as some sort of excuse for ‘Maori alienation in a Pakeha world’, echoing no doubt what he’s heard from group-think academics in counselling sessions over the years.

It’s just different values. So with a Maori, you can drop in at your [relative’s] house, sleep for the night, have a big feed, because we have been brought up in the same community.

With Europeans you have to ring them up, make an appointment for Sunday at 10am, and don’t overstay your time. So we are different.

As I write this I hear sounds of cleaning up coming from my kitchen, where friends are cleaning up after dropping in unannounced last night (as they so often do here) and staying over for a big feed. The proposition of this Charisma church bigot is so fatuous it hardly even serves as an argument, yet these are the sort of paper-thin ‘differences’ between Maori and non-Maori that are frequently cited by blowhard academics and their fellow-travellers like Collins to argue that “after years of assimilation, differences like these” need to be recognised, or “the bash” is the inevitable result. Hence the nauseating title of the patronising piece: Salvation Through Racial Pride — about as vile a proposition as one could imagine.

As P.J. O’Rourke points out so pithily, the very idea that racial differences are so important is absurd.

Finally, people are all exactly alike. There is no such thing as a race and barely such a thing as an ethnic group. If we were dogs, we’d be the same breed. George Bush and an Australian aborigine have fewer differences than a lhasa apso and a fox terrier. A Japanese raised in Riyadh would be an Arab. A Zulu raised in New Rochelle would be an orthodontist. I wish I could say I found this out by spending arctic nights on ice flows with Inuit elders and by sitting with tribal medicine men over fires made of human bones in Madagascar. But, actually, I found it out by sleeping around. People are all the same, though their circumstances differ terribly.”

It is those terrible circumstances all commentators are trying to explain, but the focus on race has made too many I’ve read in recent days ignore P.J.’s important point, and two very important things that underly his point.

The first is Maori culture itself — as distinct from the race of Maori — and the failure of that culture yet to fully embrace individualism. As more than a few Australian rugby coaches and commentators pointed out last week in relation to the haka, it is — or at least has been — a tribal culture that values savagery and bloody violence. About that those Australians were accurate, and if ‘we’ weren’t so bloody precious about things we’d recognise that.

As Alan Duff points out in the Herald, in a piece that appears opposite Simon Collins’s apologetics (in more ways than one), the “base line” for the Maori culture “is a Stone Age societal model which patently does not work in the modern world.”

Most of this is due to not developing as individuals, which includes of course taking responsibility as an individual [says Duff with unerring accuracy]. If the group says no, we’re okay, we don’t have to change. Then no change occurs.To continue with the collective, whanau, hapu, iwi societal model is a fatal mistake. A fatal mistake. For in not developing individuality we continue down the declining slope of anonymity in a collective. Of no-one willing to make decisions – especially unpopular decisions – for fear of standing out from the crowd, going against the collective will. Individuality is as fundamental to a society’s development as property rights.

The quality of debate in this country on Maori issues is poor, cowardly, non-analytical, and none of it serves the Maori people well. Like social welfare, which many of us have warned about for years, every government benefit takes another breath of the recipient’s self-respect away. Until they choke on self-hatred and maim and kill themselves and others.


Which leads to the second point, one too often ignored, the very faculty that underpins individualism: the fundamental human quality of free will.

It is our ability to make choices — moral choices — that is part of what makes us distinctly human beings. We — none of us — are merely the helpless playthings of blood, of genes, of upbringing. Adult human beings have the power of choice. We have free will.

No one, has to bash their children, they either choose to, or they chose to take the actions that led to that. Commentators talk glibly of a ‘cycle of violence,’ but not every person bashed by their parents goes on to become parents who bash; not every “poor working class Maori” bashes their kids. People who do are not depraved because they’re deprived — they’re just depraved. Not every human being who grows up in despair is trapped by that. It is fundementally a matter of choice.

Positing race or upbringing as a reason for bashing children or for avoiding the responsibility of becoming an adult human being merely provides an excuse to those who refuse to exercise any free will in their own lives, and to make any positive choices themselves. Alan Duff is right, as he has often been right before.

1 2
%d bloggers like this: