The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

Don Brash and Casey Costello delivered the Hobson’s Pledge message to 200 people at the Havelock North Function Centre on Tuesday night, 28 Feb 2017.

Casey spoke about the wrong of Maori blaming their ancestry for being deprived of opportunities when they have had Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori preschools and schools, and a separate Maori Party.

Standing on the outside it would seem the consideration and recognition of Maori issues ensured every opportunity for Maori to succeed, the Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper reported Casey as saying.

To read more and related media items, click here.

To hear Casey and Don speak – in person – the next place to be is:

Waikanae Community Centre
30 Utauta Street
Waikanae
Wellington
Monday, April 03, 2017 at 7.00 pm.

No admission fee and no collection! But there will be a book sales table.

22 thoughts on “The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

  1. Maori don’t blame ancestry, where did that come from? If anything or anyone is going to be ‘blamed’ it would be colonists and colonisation. But let’s park that for a moment – how can you possibly assert that treaty settlements, Maori broadcasting and schooling more than 100 years after the fact, make up for the disintegration of a society? A language was abolished, a way a life was removed and “treaty settlements” should fix any issues arising from this history?

    1. Oh, dear – another brain-washed one.

      First – let’s be clear that the Maori were colonists. They assert – through their history – that they came to NZ in a great canoe migration.

      Care to back up the statement that “a language was abolished?”

      Rather than the pseudo-history sanitised versions rife, most everywhere, perhaps you should look out the items which show that 13 Nga Puhi chiefs wrote to England, asking for the protection of British rule, to combat the tribal rivalry slaughter that was a way of life for the various tribes, back then.

      There was also no “Maori people” at that time in any sense of coherence. There were many tribes, intent on ‘dealing to’ any other tribes whose land or assets took their fancy or excited their jealousies.

      It was also Maori elders of that era who insisted that Maori children in schools should learn – and only speak at school – in English. Schools provided by Europeans.

      1. Can I just point out how condescending your opening line is? It has the stench of superiority.

        1. How are Maori colonists simply by arriving via canoe? Do you mean to say migrants?
        2. Maori language being abolished refers to Maori language being forbidden as a language in native schools from the 1860s. This is clear from the standardised curriculum offered in these schools, and the fact that Maori were punished for speaking Maori.
        3. Taken together, points 3&4 contradict themselves. If there were no Maori people (which I accept, as it was a name to distinguish Maori from Pakeha) then how can the ‘item’ be of any relevance to anyone apart from the 13 chiefs who wrote it? In other words, who was represented by the 13 chiefs?
        4. And, just to clarify, Maori are genealogically and hostorically related to one another, despite hapu and iwi divisions.
        5. Those Maori elders you refer to, encouraged their children to engage with Pakeha knowledge as a way to create opportunities. The key here is that, these elders did so in the knowledge that their children were secure in their Maori identity and culture. so it was not an ‘abandonment’ mindset, rather, one in which they would expand their thinking to include others cultures such as Pakeha culture.

        Lastly, I don’t quite understand how this links to the overall point that I made. Are you trying to deny the effects of colonisation, or are you trying to deny that colonisation even occured?

        1. I don’t think your assertions override the stench of the bias and brainwashed.

          When is a migrant a colonist and a colonist a migrant?

          The arrival of other migrants / colonists was hugely beneficial to the Maoris.

          1. 1. “I don’t think your assertions override the stench of the bias and brainwashed” – what the heck does this mean? Can I ask, why you felt the need to say this?

            2. Is this a trick question? A colonist is someone who participates in colonisation. This can include migrants – but not always.

            3. While there were benefits, there were many negative effects too. Let’s stick with land confiscation as an example – what are views in relation to this practice and its effects (if any)?

    2. Perhaps you should explain the “disintegration of a society” to the surviving Patuparaehe and Waitaha people – mass murder and cannabalism of two peaceful races of tangata whenua who were here many centuries before the tangata maori. What compensation would you suggest that today’s part-Maori make to these unfortunate races?

      1. I think you mean patupaiarehe. And I am glad you mentioned waitaha – I am a descendent of waitaha. Im really not sure how to engage with you beyond this as i don’t really know where to start with someone who appears to be quite misinformed. Sorry, but I won’t be replying any further to your comments.

    3. Simon Other> Maori don’t blame ancestry, where did that come from?

      Sources:
      “Some Maori leaders blame current problems on events that happened over 150 years ago.”
      – Casey Costello. http://www.hobsonspledge.nz/casey_costello_orewa_2017

      “Trust spokeswoman Casey Costello spoke about the wrong of Maori “blaming” their ancestry for being deprived of opportunities when they have had Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori preschools and schools, and a separate Maori Party developed for them.”
      – Casey Costello. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11809376

      How about you doing your own research instead of getting others to do it for you? From your other comments, it seems that you have a smidgeon of Maori blood in your genealogy. That could explain a lot. You wouldn’t be a troll from a school or university, would you?

      1. I am so surprised by the condescending tone used in the replies to my posts. Why are you so angry?

        1. What you provided in your posts does nothing to answer my question. Maori do not blame ancestry – by that I mean – Maori do not blame their ancestors for what they experience. Maori, and many others, point the finger at events in history such as colonisation. This is exactly what Casey is quoted as saying from the article you posted!

        “However, we are told that Maori are suffering from “post-colonial traumatic stress disorder”. She said the message that came across was that Maori were crippled by events that began to unfold 177 years ago – Hearld article.

        Do you notice how she uses the words “events”. In any case, this is completely beside the point. If she had said ancestry, how in the world could ancestry be used here to support her claims?

        2. So just to clarify – I wasn’t needing you to research her claims for me. I am well aware of where they came from. What I want is evidence to support the claim that Maori use their ancestry in the way that she claims.

        3. Your last comment is concerning. My reading of it implies that my “lack of research” is in someway related to my “smidgeon of Maori blood”. Is this what you are trying to say? Are you saying that a lack of research ability is understandable if I am Maori? If not – then I would like to know what you mean.

        Lastly – when you say “You wouldn’t be a troll from a school or university, would you?” – I think what you are really asking is: Are you educated? The answer is YES. But let me guess, its not real education; its not real history. I have been indoctrinated by a system that appeases Maori, by educators who are all trying to get on the gravy train?

  2. The true historial evidence clearly shows that some canoes of the so called great fleet did not arrive in New Zealand from overseas, they simply sailed down the coast of the North Island from Hawaiki, that is Hawaiki located in the upper north island of New Zealand.

    Maori today refer to their ancestors as “Tangata whenua” but over 500 chiefs signed the treaty as tangata maori because they knew they were not the tangata whenua or the indigenous people of New Zealand.

    There should not be no such thing as iwi, tribes, or maori in our political, legal or justice system as the treaty placed all the people of New Zealand under one flag and one law.

  3. When is the Don and Casey Roadshow coming to Auckland? We are very keen to attend. If you can fit in the old Franklin District that would be fantastic!

    1. They are nothing to do with 1Law4All Maddi. Of course we support their stand for equality. But if you want an answer to that question you will need to go and ask it on their website or Facebook page.

  4. With all the discussions on New Zealand exporting water Tiipini Marr Maori Bay of Plenty Regional Councillor said “that Maori will be keen to profit from the water (Whakatane Beacon Wed March 29) “If the Govt starts charging for water it will open the way for Maori to apply for a share in that revenue. Because the Waitangi Tribunal accepted freshwater as taonga under article two of the Treaty of Waitangi just as the fisheries were. “We have got 20% of the fisheries: we are not greedy people we could have 20% of the water”.

    So this is the next lolly scramble that we have to deal with

  5. Simon Other> Let’s stick with land confiscation as an example – what are views in relation to this practice and its effects (if any)?

    Please provide details to support your assertion.

    1. The are a number of settlements listed here at the office of treaty settlements:

      https://www.govt.nz/organisations/office-of-treaty-settlements/

      Rather than post screeds of information – I will provide you a link to one that i familiar with (bearing in mind there are many more like this). Note within this document the instances when land was confiscated, unjustly.

      https://www.govt.nz/dmsdocument/2455.pdf

      Now, back to my point. What are your views on this practice, and the effects it has had on Maori (if any).

      1. You are a troll, so this is my last direct response to you, being mainly intended to expose you for what you are, for the benefit of other blog viewers.

        You choose to describe European ancestry arrivals in NZ as colonialists, but Maori arrivals in NZ as migrants, without explicating the semantical or lexical differences and how they may bear upon your word usage and any implications.

        In an earlier post, you were asked if you were from some sort of school or university.

        Your response was to say: “I think what you are really asking is: Are you educated? The answer is YES.”

        I.e. you posed and answered a question that was not asked of you.

        That is a strawman logical fallacy.

        You also chose to brandish your ‘education,’ all the while showing a lack of basic grammar skills, then and now. A more recent example being: “that i familiar with.”

        Besides being a troll, you’re an intellectual fraud.

        Click on the link to see a certain image: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lIWa5EEyxeM/Rc4h1ANmN6I/AAAAAAAAACA/iMb8bnTecIs/s400/tuhoe2.bmp

        The point is obvious: Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi.

        Contrast that with the item from the office you linked to.

        “Ngāi Tūhoe Deed of Settlement Summary 4 Jun 2013

        “The Tūhoe Deed of Settlement is the final settlement of all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Tūhoe resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992, and is made up of a package . . . ”

        https://www.govt.nz/treaty-settlement-documents/ngai-tuhoe/ngai-tuhoe-deed-of-settlement-summary-4-jun-2013/

        Huh? ” . . . historical Treaty of Waitangi claims?” But Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty!

        Only a deviant like Finlayson could concoct a Treaty Settlement with a tribe that is proud that it was not a signatory to that very same Treaty of Waitangi.

        The items adduced demonstrate that the office of Treaty Settlements is a farce and the last place to obtain anything remotely like the truth from. Its chief incumbent, despite being a lawyer, cannot distinguish history from hearsay.

        An item you persist with was reported speech. Go and ask the speaker: Casey Costello. Her e-mail address may be on the Hobson’s Pledge web site.

  6. Simon O> Lastly – when you say “You wouldn’t be a troll from a school or university, would you?” – I think what you are really asking is: Are you educated? The answer is YES.

    Strawman logical fallacy response.
    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    Simon O> But let me guess, its not real education; its not real history. I have been indoctrinated by a system that appeases Maori, by educators who are all trying to get on the gravy train?

    Wow! Right first time. At least you admit it. Well done!

    Twice you write “its” without an apostrophe, (being a contraction of “it is”) all the while asserting you are educated. You aren’t fooling anyone, least of all me.

    Sources:
    The Politics Of Knowledge In Education (Elizabeth Rata) is a complex book, in which the writer engages with a real problem, namely the contested status of knowledge, at a time when digital and electronic advances, coupled with globalisation, are eroding the basis of what might be termed ‘traditional knowledge’.

    https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-of-Knowledge-in-Education/Rata/p/book/9780415517492

    ‘Marching through the Institutions’: The Neotribal Elite and the Treaty of Waitangi
    (First published in Sites, December 2005
    Elizabeth Rata

    Introduction
    The elite of neotribal capitalism 1 have played a decisive and self-interested role in controlling shifts in the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. In the identity politics of the 1970s ‘honouring the treaty’ initially referred to restitution for illegal land confiscations. From the late 1980s treaty interpretation shifted from its focus on reparations to the idea of a political partnership between the tribes and the government. In recent years that political partnership has been extended to ideas of a constitutional arrangement (TPK, 2001: 14; M. Durie, 2003; E. T. Durie, 1998; Wilson, 1998).

    Control over the interpretation and symbolism of the Treaty of Waitangi was one of the most effective of the brokerage mechanisms used by the emergent neotribal elite. It enabled a strategic march through the institutions of a democratic society by non- democratic neotraditionalist forces. Elsewhere (Rata, 2003a) I examined the brokers or compradors (using the examples of Sir Tipene O’Regan, Sir Robert Mahuta and Professor Tamati Reedy), the brokerage mechanism, and the ideology of revived traditional leadership. This paper focuses specifically on the ‘partnership’ interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and its contribution to the success of the elite’s brokerage strategy.
    http://natlib-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLNZ&docId=INNZ7120174910002837&tab=innz&tabs=detailsTab

    The Treaty of Waitangi – an Explanation
    by The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata M.A, Ll.B., Lit.D.
    First published in 1922
    Confiscated Lands (Page 16)

    In conclusion I would just like to say a word about the lands that were confiscated by past Governments. Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

    The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This it self is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.
    http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html

    Troll exposed – time to move on.

    1. I made several points in my last post, and you chose to focus on:

      1. The absence of an apostrophe as evidence to support a claim that I’m not educated.
      2. Incorrectly identify a straw-man fallacy. If anything, what i said was being uncharitable.
      3. You then show how well you can ‘cut and paste’ by posting screeds of information to address a point that I wasn’t making. This is so ironic! From the source you provided:

      A strawman fallacy is “giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent”

      So, it is you who has constructed a strawman, by providing evidence against an argument that I have not made.

      4. the irony doesn’t end there – Elizabeth Rata, someone who people on this blog love to quote, was educated at the University of Auckland. If my education at UOA means I have been indoctrinated by people trying to appease Maori as a way to get on the gravy train, then, so is she. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

      5. I would like you address the points that I have made earlier, so in your next post could you please do so. If you would like to bring up additional points please do so only aftere you have addressed the other points. They are:

      1. What I want is evidence to support the claim that Maori use their ancestry in the way that she claims.
      2. Are you saying that a lack of research ability is understandable if I am Maori? If not – then I would like to know what you mean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: